Draconian Oklahoma Abortion Bill Goes Too Far

Doesn't matter .. both are justification for invasion of a woman's body. all you are saying is "this reason is different that the other reason" OK . . so what .. both are reasons for invasion of a woman's body .. on the basis of fallacious Utilitarianism.

Either fallacious utilitarianism is valid justification for law .. or it is not. You don't get to pick and choose once the flood gates are opened.

 

YOU posted :mswan said: ↑
Thank you for admitting that it's a death."""

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHERE ?

WHEN ?

did anyone say otherwise??????????"""


I haven't seen anyone say a fetus isn't killed in an abortion...no one has to "admit" anything.

 

Slaves are created when someone takes away a person's right to bodily autonomy

EXACTLY what Anti-Choicers want to do to women.

 

Not a false equivalency .. in one case you have invasion of a womans body on the basis of fallacious utilitarianism .. in the other case you have invasion of a womans body on the basis of fallacious utilitarianism.

If fallacious utilitarianism is valid justification for law .. then its valid justification for law. You don't get to pick and choose once the flood gates are open.

 

Yes it does. You don't understand that different things are different.

 

Wasting your time. He's only interested in imposing his beliefs on others.

 

Pols lie? Really? Who knew?!

 

Nope. Ignorant yes. Stupid no.

 

Of course, it is. The comparison of a fetus with a slave is nonsense.

Those of us concerned about women's rights are not bound by specious arguments advanced by anyone.

 

Huh?

Women should have access to abortion so they can make up their own minds.

Male pro-lifers.

 

That is a very inaccurate way to speak. If you are talking about "back alley" abortions, you are correct. But the MAIN way that abortion laws are enforced, is through the medical community, which is generally not eager to break the law. As it is through the medical establishment, also, that most access abortion-- there's your mechanism.

 

OK

 

I am still correct.

 

With this abortion law, clearly Oklahoma is looking to get more people dependent on govt.
Very odd

 

I'm beginning to think the religious right has published a book of fatuous responses to escape the reality that the belief a fertilized egg, in the early stages of development is a person, is not founded in science, but rather in religion.

 

Interesting, you assert this right where none explicitly exists, and yet you'd not confer the same rights to say the fathers of said future offspring. Your claim is that an extra legal right exists where one does not. You assert that only a woman can make the choice even though that decision could harm or negatively impact the father, and you'd guess then that the baby here has no rights? That seems a pretty convenient legal theory then, no? Ill simply relay that many states find that killing a woman who is pregnant is also not one but two murders irrespective of the term or viability, so the law already recognizes personhood rights for the unborn in many jurisdictions.

Your assertion is that it is legal then for a woman to take away the rights of both the unborn child and from the father, is that correct? And yet, you'd still argue against only the assessment you have made that centers on your attribution of the extra legal rights of the mother. Again, it seems soupy in your world. Would you assert that the right of the mother then outweighs the right of the unborn child and father? I think it must for your theory to be credible. And given that, your logic fails, does it now since you're first care was to ensure that rights aren't illegally removed from the stakeholders. And then, you pronounce that women win. So you do then agree they have an extra legal privilege here?

 

Not in the least.

 

I am not the one trying to impose laws, so the burden falls on your shoulders. All you have done is hide the true number of abortions by limiting ones choice. While this may give a warm feeling, all you have done is create a demand for medical tourism for those with money, abortion drugs for those on a budget, and back room abortions for the desperate. This is as effective as closing ones eyes and pretending abortions are not being performed.

The truth is that abortion rates were already decreasing without government interference. Abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society.

I can respect your beliefs, but only up to the point of using government to impose your beliefs on others.

 

You're doing better now that you're working on understanding the difference between a statement and an argument. Good for you.

My two statements you cited above were not support for censoring your opinion on the forum, so your point to me seems irrelevant.

I made no such suggestion.

It's my opinion we have no business telling a pregnant woman what she should do about her pregnancy. The pregnant woman decides, period. Not you, not me.

Balanced by what or whom?

"Slushes?" Hohhh-Kayyy...

 

I have only been trying to discern your own slant on the issue, so I could better interpret your post, in which you issue your challenge. But the things you say of ME, are just false. I am Pro- Choice, but do not feel that abortions should be legal beyond the point of fetal viability. As a practical matter, the overwhelming preponderance of abortions occur before this, so it is misrepresentational to accuse me of "limiting... choice," and creating, "a demand for medical tourism."

So, do you wanna take another run at it, being more specific about your own view, this time? Are you advocating that abortion should be a legal option, for the full 9 months of pregnancy? Since, regardless of whatever general restrictions are in place, when there is a medical emergency, exceptions are made, in those cases. But for anyone else, why would you believe that 5 1/2 months, does not provide ample to opportunity, for those who wish to abort their pregnancy?

 

It's a difference between science/government and absolute universal innate morality. Science can't change the nature of something that is objectively immoral.

 

In the situation of brain death without cardiovascular arrest: Usually something more productive like harvest their organs to save others who are actually still alive as persons. Though this requires prior consent as an organ donor. We still respect peoples wishes even when they are dead and by default corpses are treated with respect even though not alive.

 

What right was asserted .. you are talking gibberish - and demonstrated in the previous post that you thoughts on liberty are backwards .. need to figure that one out first.

There is no same right to be conferred on the father..

Didn't claim any such right .. you are making things up - and you don't understand the founding principle.

"Assert only woman can make choice" - the first coherent thing you have said - who else should get to make the choices in relation to a persons own body. Are you a closet totalitarian or what ?

Appeal to a moron fallacy .. can't claim these clowns making such law are "Authorities"

Thanks for asking -- but no that is incorrect. 1) there is no child at the zygote stage -- no Person -- that anyone can prove so "assumed premise fallacy" - you first need to prove your claim before you can make this statement .. and not be in raging fallacyland.

So tell me Druggit .. When do you figure the soul arrives.

2) there is no right of the sperm donor -- so nothing to take way.

 

Didn't compare a fetus to a slave .. you must have me confused with someone else.

You have no concern for womens rights - only those you agree with .. all fine to invade a woman's bodily autonomy on the basis of "specius arguments" (hence the term fallacious in case you didn't know what that meant) in the case of the vax mandate .. but howl and whine when the same specious arguments are used to invade a woman's bodily autonomy.

Raging hypocrisy mate.

 

what you don't understand is where they are the same - and this is where your argument fails.