Oklahoma : Women who want an abortion face needing the father’s written consent

[Halyon]

Eghhh. I know we've had the same discussion/conclusion about this before, but this line... One is objectively more severe. The guy lies you can get an abortion and drop the scumbag. And yeah, I know having an abortion isn't a picnic or anything, but its a choice and option.

She lies about it and his finances (and, should he fail at that potentially his freedom) is hooked for 18 years. There's no opt out. I know before we agreed that there should be with terms, but since that doesn't currently exist and doesn't seem like it will for some time now it seems very callous to suggest that this kind of lie is as damaging or equivalent to its opposite. One clearly has an overwhelming power dynamic at play, the other doesn't.

Hence I have said on many earlier occasions, that I fully support that men get the right to 'abort' as well. They give up any and all parental rights to the child, they can't see it or influence it in any way shape or form, they don't pay one single red cent to them either, and this cannot be reverted.

I'd say that's entirely fair.

[derpkitteh]

Which is why a woman should never pop a child out for you. You are unsafe to be around.

i would be the one popping out the child.

when someone is so stupid they feel they can alter reality to suit their desires, it angers me. such people need to be hit really hard in the face, so that they get snapped back into reality.

reality will NEVER be some dream world you can simply will to your own desire. life doesn't work that way.

[Total Crica]

i would be the one popping out the child.

Sucks to be your child.

I will definitely abort from now on to ensure none of my children will ever wind up being raised by someone like you.

I will never force that life on anyone if I can help it.

[derpkitteh]

Sucks to be your child. I will definitely abort from now on to ensure none of my children will ever wind up being raised by someone like you. I will never force that life on anyone if I can help it.

i don't plan to have one. this life is nothing but wretched suffering. all of human history is a war, there's emotional distress, random psychos.

the world doesn't deserve us.

[Reivur]

Hence I have said on many earlier occasions, that I fully support that men get the right to 'abort' as well. They give up any and all parental rights to the child, they can't see it or influence it in any way shape or form, they don't pay one single red cent to them either, and this cannot be reverted.

I'd say that's entirely fair.

Yep. Still agree with your line of thinking; I'm just pointing it out because since our ideal solution isn't into effect now the scenarios aren't really equivalent and it makes you look pretty callous without that knowledge known in advance.

[PassingBy]

...it's true though. And it's a fetus. It's not a person, it's a clump of developing tissue. The rest is sentimental value, which is deeply personal, and you don't have the right to push personal value unto others who don't share it.

And, if I was forced to give birth to someone, they wouldn't even be near me 2 mins. later. I wouldn't want anything whatsoever to do with it. Nothing.

- - - Updated - - -



A fetus is not a human being. So you are in fact wrong. Yes, the fetus has human dna, so it is human, this is true, only an idiot would deny it. But an idiot would also play word and definition-games and try to tell other people that dna makes you more than human, it makes you a human being that qualifies for rights that just human does not.

Your books are irrelevant.

It is a very difficult moral dilemma though at what point is the fetus concerned human?
At the point of birth?
At the point at which it can survive outside of the mother with proper medical aid?
At the point at which it can survive outside of the mother without proper medical aid?
At the point brain activity is detected?
At the point it can feel pain?
At the point of it's self awareness?
At the point of it's first heartbeat?
Any line we draw here will be artificial at some point and there will be arguements for any of those to be enforced.

And it can't be just a matter of the mother's "bodily autonomy" since if we take that as our only moral goal - we must advocate for abortions at any time of the pregnancy. Be it 1 week or the whole 9 months. While the "fetus" is inside - we can safely kill it to protect the mother's bodily autonomy.

The whole thing with us drawing the line at 8 weeks, or 20 weeks, or whatever is there to justify an immoral action, that is clearly immoral in order to avoid the greater evil. No matter how much we try to sugar coat it abortion will not be and should not be ok. It is the last resort to avoid deeper and worse consequences, like mother's potential health issues, women doing underground abortions with a freaking coat hanger and so on. The small evil is done to avoid a bigger one.

But since there is no better option we make a moral compromise, we decide that up to a certain point the human being is not a human being, and thus we are not ending a life, but just not letting it start.
And the closer this imaginary line is moved to the actual fact of birth - the less and less difference there is between the small and the big evil.

[Halyon]

Yep. Still agree with your line of thinking; I'm just pointing it out because since our ideal solution isn't into effect now the scenarios aren't really equivalent and it makes you look pretty callous without that knowledge known in advance.

I can see that, yeah. The alternative is still worse though, and is inexcusable, no matter if the current situation isn't ideal. This bill is a solid step backwards, and I can't in good conscience support it. The current situation requires a bandaid from a scraped knee, that bill is an open fracture.

[Deleted]

I don't know if I have ever heard a more callous and evil description for describing your unborn child. Basically, in your opinion, your child is a parasite.
Its for people like you that these laws should exist so the child has a chance at life.
Fast forward 20 years... when the kids is an adult and can have a conversation with you, would you still think nothing of just killing your child?

Comparing a 20 year old to a fetus is like comparing apples to oranges...

And believe it or not, a lot of people would still think 20 years later that abortion would have been their best choice. Not everyone has the necessary means to raise a child, due to economic reasons, health problems, etc. Though that is something the parent/s should avoid ever saying for obvious reasons, regardless of their previous intentions for abortion.

[PassingBy]

I was coerced by my family to have the child instead of abort at 19. I was separated from my husband at the time I had it.

I was raped between the time I separated from my husband and having my child.

I never named the father on my child's birth certificate because I honestly did not know if it was my husband or my rapist.

My family took me to get state welfare for the child. The state took DNA from my child and then forced my husband to submit to a DNA test.

I did not initiate any of that. My family and the government did.

I am sorry for all the shit that happened with you, but you were 19 and you were capable of making your own decisions.
So it was you who went to the state even though forced by your parents.

As well as it was you who decided to have the child instead of aborting it, even though you were forced by your parents.

There was no way your parents could've actually made you not have an abortion, or not go to the state for welfare if you said no.

So in the end ultimately it was still your decision, just taken under the pressure of what seems to be a rather strange family.

And let's agree that your case is a rather extreme one. While still being awful and horrible up and down - it is still a very extreme and a very rare case.

[Reivur]

I can see that, yeah. The alternative is still worse though, and is inexcusable, no matter if the current situation isn't ideal. This bill is a solid step backwards, and I can't in good conscience support it. The current situation requires a bandaid from a scraped knee, that bill is an open fracture.

Yeah. Absolutely agree. If anything its just going to make the matter not be taken seriously for an even greater period of time, because this is going to be the golden standard/example of extremism for some time.

[Halyon]

It is a very difficult moral dilemma though at what point is the fetus concerned human?
At the point of birth?
At the point at which it can survive outside of the mother with proper medical aid?
At the point at which it can survive outside of the mother without proper medical aid?
At the point brain activity is detected?
At the point it can feel pain?
At the point of it's self awareness?
At the point of it's first heartbeat?
Any line we draw here will be artificial at some point and there will be arguements for any of those to be enforced.

And it can't be just a matter of the mother's "bodily autonomy" since if we take that as our only moral goal - we must advocate for abortions at any time of the pregnancy. Be it 1 week or the whole 9 months. While the "fetus" is inside - we can safely kill it to protect the mother's bodily autonomy.

The whole thing with us drawing the line at 8 weeks, or 20 weeks, or whatever is there to justify an immoral action, that is clearly immoral in order to avoid the greater evil. No matter how much we try to sugar coat it abortion will not be and should not be ok. It is the last resort to avoid deeper and worse consequences, like mother's potential health issues, women doing underground abortions with a freaking coat hanger and so on. The small evil is done to avoid a bigger one.

But since there is no better option we make a moral compromise, we decide that up to a certain point the human being is not a human being, and thus we are not ending a life, but just not letting it start.
And the closer this imaginary line is moved to the actual fact of birth - the less and less difference there is between the small and the big evil.

The point of viability, were abortion gets cutoff some time in advance, it varies depending on were you are. Viability means when the fetus is sufficiently developed to have a good chance of survival outside the womb. This stems mostly on brain development, as the brain is were all the important shit is. If that doesn't work, nothing else will. Of course, if the body's broken, the chances will be reduced as well. Even a pre-born at 24 weeks requires intensive care to survive. We are getting better and better at it, but the fetus is not, as it's biology, and we can't really force any development there...yet. So until viability changes, then abortion is as abortion does, and fairly so.

That you call it immoral is entirely your right. I'd call it questionable myself, but that doesn't enable me to impede the free right to choose of anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. Absolutely agree. If anything its just going to make the matter not be taken seriously for an even greater period of time, because this is going to be the golden standard/example of extremism for some time.

Unfortunately that may be the case, as so many people either for or against just rely on their knee reflexes and don't look into it any deeper, or with any more nuance than the black and white it is now.

#ThanksTrump

[Deleted]

am sorry for all the shit that happened with you, but you were 19 and you were capable of making your own decisions.
So it was you who went to the state even though forced by your parents.

As well as it was you who decided to have the child instead of aborting it, even though you were forced by your parents.

There was no way your parents could've actually made you not have an abortion, or not go to the state for welfare if you said no..

This is an incredible naive thing to say. If you truly believe a 19 year old, dependent on their parents, has any kind of choice in regards to a situation like that in a lot of parts in the world, then you need to do some rethinking.

And Tota even said "coerced". Do you know what that means? Do you know what kind of power parents have over their child? It'd be a different story if Tota was like 30 years old instead or was independent at that time.

[Total Crica]

I am sorry for all the shit that happened with you, but you were 19 and you were capable of making your own decisions.
So it was you who went to the state even though forced by your parents.

As well as it was you who decided to have the child instead of aborting it, even though you were forced by your parents.

There was no way your parents could've actually made you not have an abortion, or not go to the state for welfare if you said no.

So in the end ultimately it was still your decision, just taken under the pressure of what seems to be a rather strange family.

And let's agree that your case is a rather extreme one. While still being awful and horrible up and down - it is still a very extreme and a very rare case.

My case was quite common 25 years ago, which is when this all happened.

A woman separated from her husband usually had to rely on family to not be homeless.

Which is why I said I was coerced, not forced.

I could have chosen homelessness, shelters, abortion over what my family offered - a place to stay and help raising the child if I consented to government help.

I choose the handouts that were better for both me and my child.

Those that gave me those handouts went after my husband, not me.

[PassingBy]

The point of viability, were abortion gets cutoff some time in advance, it varies depending on were you are. Viability means when the fetus is sufficiently developed to have a good chance of survival outside the womb. This stems mostly on brain development, as the brain is were all the important shit is. If that doesn't work, nothing else will. Of course, if the body's broken, the chances will be reduced as well. Even a pre-born at 24 weeks requires intensive care to survive. We are getting better and better at it, but the fetus is not, as it's biology, and we can't really force any development there...yet. So until viability changes, then abortion is as abortion does, and fairly so.

That you call it immoral is entirely your right. I'd call it questionable myself, but that doesn't enable me to impede the free right to choose of anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -



Unfortunately that may be the case, as so many people either for or against just rely on their knee reflexes and don't look into it any deeper, or with any more nuance than the black and white it is now.

#ThanksTrump

Point of viability is a rather sketchy issue.
With the wonders of modern medicine the child can survive outside of the womb at the time it is hard to be considered viable since it won't survive outside of a very specific hospital machinery and qualified help.
And as medicine advances - this point will start slowly moving towards the time of conception.

While a lot of "pro choice" activists argue that abortions should be allowed up until the actual birth. Since the child is still inside the mother. It is her body. And as we all know "My body, my rules".

By not doing an abortion at 24 weeks you are still violating the woman's right to choose and her bodily autonomy.
And you are doing that for something that is not considered a human still and doesn't have any rights.

Why so?

- - - Updated - - -

My case was quite common 25 years ago, which is when this all happened.

A woman separated from her husband usually had to rely on family to not be homeless.

Which is why I said I was coerced, not forced.

I could have chosen homelessness, shelters, abortion over what my family offered - a place to stay and help raising the child if I consented to government help.

I choose the handouts that were better for both me and my child.

Those that gave me those handouts went after my husband, not me.

Didn't know that it was 25 years ago. My bad.
Once again really sorry for what you had to go through.

[Deleted]

Point of viability is a rather sketchy issue.
With the wonders of modern medicine the child can survive outside of the womb at the time it is hard to be considered viable since it won't survive outside of a very specific hospital machinery and qualified help.
And as medicine advances - this point will start slowly moving towards the time of conception.

You need to realize that this is only available to people who can afford it.

I'm pretty sure you can agree that the average Jane Doe does not have money for that kind of thing so it's not really a solution.

[PassingBy]

This is an incredible naive thing to say. If you truly believe a 19 year old, dependent on their parents, has any kind of choice in regards to a situation like that in a lot of parts in the world, then you need to do some rethinking.

And Tota even said "coerced". Do you know what that means? Do you know what kind of power parents have over their child? It'd be a different story if Tota was like 30 years old instead or was independent at that time.

I could give a few examples of people actually going against their parents in a similar situation.
Situation where the parent were insisting on an abortion though, but chose to keep the child.

But it would lead us to a pointless arguement. And I don't want to undermine the hardships that Tota had to go through.

As a son of a young single mother myself I have nothing but respect towards women that make a difficult choice to raise the child no matter what and power through all the shit that society is throwing at them.

[Total Crica]

the time of conception

The question of when life begins has nothing to do with forcing pregnant females to carry it to term against their wills.

Forcing life to be sustained is not the option that leads to anything better for the lives that you force to sustain life.

[Poopymonster]

Point of viability is a rather sketchy issue.
With the wonders of modern medicine the child can survive outside of the womb at the time it is hard to be considered viable since it won't survive outside of a very specific hospital machinery and qualified help.
And as medicine advances - this point will start slowly moving towards the time of conception.

At which point they can yoink the fetus out of the woman, put it in their Fetustron 5000, and the man can be financially responsible for the fetus as it becomes human, including the removal procedure and transplant, then raising it, and all the other things people claim make parenting enjoyable.

[Total Crica]

choice to raise the child no matter what

I ended up not raising him, my parents did.

I was a junkie by that time. Lots of mental issues that were not diagnosed or treated, (i didn't know i was sick), I turned to drugs for relief.

Today, I have worked at living with my mental issues, but it's only been due to my current husband of 10 years that I have been able to do so.

I will abort any child I wind up preggers with from now on.

I don't feel capable of being a mother or living with abandoning another child.

[PassingBy]

You need to realize that this is only available to people who can afford it.

I'm pretty sure you can agree that the average Jane Doe does not have money for that kind of thing so it's not really a solution.

You are just illustrating my point.

"prolifers" say "the fetus becomes a person at conception" or the more moderate ones "with it's first heartbeat".
"prochoicers" say "the fetus is not a person up until the actual act of birth" or the more moderate onse "until it can survive outside the mother without additional medical support".
"moderates" say "let's draw the line at 24 weeks, which is more or less the state of where the child's brain is developed enough for it to have a chance at survival in a hospital with proper medical care".

Any of those positions is artificial. And is needed only to justify making a bad decision over a very bad one.

That's all I was saying.