Oklahoma -- Anti-Abortion law.

[Daelak]

I'm pro choice but even I concede the point when a fetus become a human is an opinion not a fact.

Definitely not an opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Well the other party is thriving by shutting down democracy.

I'm not sure how the democratic party is doing that, when they are always light-years ahead in wanting to increase voter participation in all demographics.

[Lenonis]

What if you have it done elsewhere?

That's basically the result -- people with money will travel to another state to have it done. People who are poor will have to get back-alley abortions.

I'm not sure what sort of jurisdiction rules apply -- for example if a doctor has a license to practice in Oklahoma and another state and performs and abortion in the other state can OK go after them anyway?

[Deleted]

This bill also outlaws abortion for rape and incest victims.

I imagine false accusations would skyrocket if that wasn't the case.

Anyway doesn't OK have contraception and morning after pills?

[Eliseus]

What other person's choice is being removed?

Are you serious? Let's kill someone and claim their rights aren't be removed? Even if you try to create your own non-scientific supported opinion of when life is created (which is funny because they consider a bacteria as life) you realize in court you can be charged with taking away what possibilities would happen in the future? For example, I go into a medical lawsuit and they sue based off the future I could of had.

[Lenonis]

Roe v. Wade is a right to privacy. Thanks for playing.

You are being needlessly pedantic.

The constitution established the rights and powers of the judicial branch and the judicial branch and declared that access to abortion is a constitutional right.

If you want to argue that it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, that's fine, but it's a point that's pointless to make in the context of the current legal landscape.

This law will be declared unconstitutional. People who voted for it even said it was likely it would be.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway doesn't OK have contraception and morning after pills?

Interesting question about how a law like this would affect those things -- certainly opens the window to outlawing them as well.

[Gamdwelf]

I imagine false accusations would skyrocket if that wasn't the case.

Anyway doesn't OK have contraception and morning after pills?

Obviously just don't have sex ever.

[Reeve]

Are you serious? Let's kill someone and claim their rights aren't be removed? Even if you try to create your own non-scientific supported opinion of when life is created (which is funny because they consider a bacteria as life) you realize in court you can be charged with taking away what possibilities would happen in the future? For example, I go into a medical lawsuit and they sue based off the future I could of had.

It's not a person. It's life. It's even human life. But it's not a human life. It's not a person. I don't get any more upset about the removal of an early stage fetus than I do about the removal of a gallbladder.

[Lenonis]

Obviously just don't have sex ever.

Well...that is the stance of the abstinence only crowd. Statistics be damned and all that.

EDIT -- c'mon people. Don't turn this into a fetus vs life debate. It's been done a million times, it doesn't ever go anywhere good, and the threads always get locked.

[Jotaux]

What other person's choice is being removed?

I think and this is just me trying to understand their argument but they are talking about removing the choice to remove another person choice. Basically you are removing the law makers choice to remove the choice to abort or not. I'm probably wrong because that sounds nuts.

[Reeve]

I think and this is just me trying to understand their argument but they are talking about removing the choice to remove another person choice. Basically you are removing the law makers choice to remove the choice to abort or not. I'm probably wrong because that sounds nuts.

Nah, he's talking about the removal of the fetus's choice of whether or not to be born. Which is like arguing about the choice of an appendix of whether or not to be removed.

[Jotaux]

Definitely not an opinion.

How is it not an opinion. The moment something becomes human is entirely up to our opinions. We set the parameters for the classification.

[wheresmywoft]

I think and this is just me trying to understand their argument but they are talking about removing the choice to remove another person choice. Basically you are removing the law makers choice to remove the choice to abort or not. I'm probably wrong because that sounds nuts.

Yea, like Machismo level of nuts.

[Gamdwelf]

Well...that is the stance of the abstinence only crowd. Statistics be damned and all that.

EDIT -- c'mon people. Don't turn this into a fetus vs life debate. It's been done a million times, it doesn't ever go anywhere good, and the threads always get locked.

Problems arise when no definition of life can be agreed on.

[Daelak]

How is it not an opinion. The moment something becomes human is entirely up to our opinions. We set the parameters for the classification.

There is definitely a biological threshold that has to be surpassed in order to be a human.

[araine]

totally unconstitutional this issue was settled by the SCOTUS in Roe vs Wade

But totally expected from the right wing idiots out there that really when it comes to it dont give a fuck about the constitution and the right to freedom of choice

[Eliseus]

You are being needlessly pedantic.

The constitution established the rights and powers of the judicial branch and the judicial branch and declared that access to abortion is a constitutional right.

If you want to argue that it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, that's fine, but it's a point that's pointless to make in the context of the current legal landscape.

This law will be declared unconstitutional. People who voted for it even said it was likely it would be.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting question about how a law like this would affect those things -- certainly opens the window to outlawing them as well.

What the law will be declared doesn't make it correct or even actually unconstitutional. People, more specifically democrats, just throw unconstitutional at whatever they can however they can, whether it is or not. It gives more support to the cause because the sheep will believe it. It gives more emphasis on how they view and issue than just saying thing like, "you are wrong". Or do you think we live in an era where people don't lie?

Also, considering politics is all about being pedantic, thank you?

[wheresmywoft]

Problems arise when no definition of life can be agreed on.

The definition of life isn't even the problem. People kill many living things throughout a regular day. There is no outrage for every single one of those items.

[Eliseus]

It's not a person. It's life. It's even human life. But it's not a human life. It's not a person. I don't get any more upset about the removal of an early stage fetus than I do about the removal of a gallbladder.

Says who? I came from this fetus so I find it interesting you are saying I'm not a human a life.

[Sesshou]

But here is my question -- whether or not you agree with legalized abortion you have to admit this is blatantly unconstitutional and they admit it'll get struck down fast in court -- so why on earth would they pass this?

Politicians knowingly wasting tax payer money should be criminal.

[Lenonis]

Problems arise when no definition of life can be agreed on.

Yup -- and for some reason the conversations never seem to remain civil when it is discussed.

Isn't the current legal standard fetal viability? Is that 24 weeks now? Or have states successfully gotten that down to 20? I think some of those laws got struck down but I'm not sure...hard to keep track.

Still -- going back to my original point I'm not sure continuing to placate their more conservative base is a great strategy as they'll continue to alienate an increasingly socially liberal electorate.