Oklahoma Senate Passes Personhood Act, Bans All Abortion and Contraception

• Yoorah wrote on 2012-02-21 05:03
  Extremist pro-life: Can't have an abortion at any stage in the unborn child's development, under any circumstances, with no exceptions.
  Extremist pro-choice: Can have an abortion at any stage in the unborn child's development, for any reason.
  
  Both sides are stupid, except one of them involves killing.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-02-21 05:13
  I'm still not seeing how that's extremist.
  
  An unborn child is an unborn child.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-02-21 05:17
  Like I said, biased view.
• Kollin wrote on 2012-02-21 05:17

  Quote from Yoorah;780895:

  Extremist pro-life: Can't have an abortion at any stage in the unborn child's development, under any circumstances, with no exceptions.
  Extremist pro-choice: Can have an abortion at any stage in the unborn child's development, for any reason.
  
  Both sides are stupid, except one of them involves killing.

  
  
  The other involves forcing your own beliefs down others throats, like what this bill does. Pro-choice is just that, the ability to choose for yourself. No forcing what you think that a person should do onto said person.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-21 05:37
  Yoorah has a point. Once something is alive, you're kind of killing it by aborting it.
  
  I'm not picking sides, I'm just sayin.
  

  Quote from Kollin;780907:

  The other involves forcing your own beliefs down others throats, like what this bill does. Pro-choice is just that, the ability to choose for yourself. No forcing what you think that a person should do onto said person.

  
  Actually, the argument is that you shouldn't have the right to choose how another life turns out. It's your body, but there comes a time when it stops being just your body. There's another person in there, and eventually they're gonna come out of you.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-02-21 05:40
  So are trees and plants and animals, but humans have no issue killing those.
  
  Don't get me wrong-- I detest stupid whores who refuse to use protection because they think they can just abort it if they do get pregnant. But if given the choice between an unborn child that is basically on the same level as a plant or a woman who was raped? Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the actual living, feeling human being who was violated beyond repair.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-02-21 05:43

  Quote from Kollin;780907:

  The other involves forcing your own beliefs down others throats, like what this bill does. Pro-choice is just that, the ability to choose for yourself. No forcing what you think that a person should do onto said person.

  
  
  Not being allowed to do everything you want to do? Welcome to society. This can apply to virtually anything and has nothing to do with forcing religious views onto others. :P
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-21 05:56

  Quote from Cynic;780940:

  So are trees and plants and animals, but humans have no issue killing those.
  
  Don't get me wrong-- I detest stupid whores who refuse to use protection because they think they can just abort it if they do get pregnant. But if given the choice between an unborn child that is basically on the same level as a plant or a woman who was raped? Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the actual living, feeling human being who was violated beyond repair.

  
  It's not like the woman is going to be killed if she has it. Yeah, it's not her choice to be raped. And yeah, it would make her feel awful if she had to have it. However...
  
  I think the main issue here is how much of a value that's put on the unborn child. Is it really just on the same level as a plant or a tree, or is it a human that just isn't there yet? If it's a human that just isn't there yet, are we saying that to be raped and forced to have the child is worse than death? Because like, death is pretty fucking terrible. Most would consider it the worst thing out there.
  
  Again, I'm not picking sides, but we can't act like this is a one sided issue when it really isn't. This isn't like gay marriage where there's an obvious "good" side (or at least a "this doesn't affect me anyway" side, depending on your views).
• Claudia wrote on 2012-02-21 06:02

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;780955:

  It's not like the woman is going to be killed if she has it.

  
  
  But what if she is? The bill doesn't mention abortion in the event of the pregnancy being too dangerous for the mother as being legal.
  
  Also, what if her family threatened to kill her if she gave birth to the baby? Granted, that doesn't happen very often in America, but it's still not unheard of.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-02-21 06:04
  He was commenting on the moral issue having more than one valid side in general, not about this bill specifically.
  Like I said, only the pro-life extremists would think that this bill is good. Well, minus the ones that say that you shouldn't be allowed to use condoms either. lolol
• Cynic wrote on 2012-02-21 06:31
  The fact remains that no women who is sick or was raped should be forced to carry a child simply because someone else decides it's what is "right".
  
  Unless they are the ones carrying the child, they do not nor should they have a say in what happens to it.
  
  I don't like salad, but do you see me going around, trying to force people to stop eating salad just because I think it's gross? No, I don't. Because it's not my choice nor is it my business what other people do. If they want to eat salad, it is their personal choice, not mine.
  
  Just because it gets your feathers riled up doesn't mean you can butt your noise in where it doesn't belong. It's not your body, therefore it isn't your choice.
  You can use whatever excuses you want, but that fact still remains. Nothing justifies forcing a woman to carry a child if she didn't ask for it or if it is harming/killing her. And that's a fact. Deny it all you want.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-21 06:32

  Quote from Claudia;780962:

  But what if she is? The bill doesn't mention abortion in the event of the pregnancy being too dangerous for the mother as being legal.
  
  Also, what if her family threatened to kill her if she gave birth to the baby? Granted, that doesn't happen very often in America, but it's still not unheard of.

  
  First one: Then yeah, that would be a reason to abort it almost unconditionally. It's hard to defend this, unless one is to say that the younger one is more important, even if they're unborn. I can see people arguing that.
  
  Second one: They'd need to pursue the family. It then becomes another issue entirely as that's illegal for a reason. Whether people threaten each other with death for not doing what they want or not should have no effect on how laws work.
  

  Quote from Cynic;780983:

  Unless they are the ones carrying the child, they do not nor should they have a say in what happens to it.

  
  I'm gonna state my opinion here. Under some conditions, I disagree. It is not longer just her body and becomes another human.
  

  [FONT=Arial]I don't like salad, but do you see me going around, trying to force people to stop eating salad just because I think it's gross? No, I don't.[/FONT]

  
  There's a huge difference between salad and killing. I would go around to stop people from killing each other and have no problems with that. The only real debate here is whether or not the unborn child is considered an equivalent life, which it obviously isn't from your standpoint. That's where people disagree.
  

  [FONT=Arial]Nothing justifies forcing a woman to carry a child if she didn't ask for it[/FONT]

  
  Actually, a lot of things do. To some people, it's a life. That would almost be like saying she should be able to kill her baby if she doesn't want to take care of it anymore, if the the unborn child is viewed as having an equal life. It's not just her body anymore.
  

  [FONT=Arial]And that's a fact.[/FONT]

  
  No, it's really not :l
  
  Overall, I agree with your general idea, but like when religious people start getting attacked, sometimes I feel the need to remind everyone that not all issues are one sided and there are logical sides to both ways of thinking. It bothers me just as much, perhaps a little more even, when I see people I side with rejecting arguments and saying their views must be facts and absolute truths as it does when the side I'm not on does the same. You may very well be right, but refusing to acknowledge that there are two sides to this just gets in the way of progress.[FONT=Arial][/FONT][FONT=Arial][/FONT][FONT=Arial][/FONT]
• Chiyuri wrote on 2012-02-21 06:37

  Quote from Yoorah;780895:

  Extremist pro-life: Can't have an abortion at any stage in the unborn child's development, under any circumstances, with no exceptions.
  Extremist pro-choice: Can have an abortion at any stage in the unborn child's development, for any reason.
  
  Both sides are stupid, except one of them involves killing.

  
  
  It depend on personal point of view if a side is stupid or not or if one involve killing or not.
  
  So that post is kind of biased.
  
  
  Personnaly, I'm near been an extremist pro-choice. I don't see the spiritual value of a souless human (human being under the age of 1-2 usualy don't have souls yet) So to my eyes, abortion is like removing a undesired parasite. I also don't have a problem with getting rid of a soulless human either since I see it as nearly the same as an animal...
  Of course that's on my own moral and religious belief, I'm not here to say if it's right or wrong or if it's stupid or not. Just saying, different perspective exist in the world, So I'll like to ask who you are to judge that both arguments are stupid or that one of them involve "killing" ?
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-02-21 06:43

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;780986:

  First one: Then yeah, that would be a reason to abort it almost unconditionally. It's hard to defend this, unless one is to say that the younger one is more important, even if they're unborn. I can see people arguing that.
  
  Second one: They'd need to pursue the family. It then becomes another issue entirely as that's illegal for a reason. Whether people threaten each other with death for not doing what they want or not should have no effect on how laws work.

  
  
  Why should non-rape victims have more say over what happens to rape victims than rape victims?
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-21 06:46

  Quote from Chiyuri;780993:

  I don't see the spiritual value of a souless human (human being under the age of 1-2 usualy don't have souls yet)

  
  What does that even mean? ;__; So they just don't count because they won't consciously remember it anyway?
  

  Quote from Kaeporo;781004:

  Why should non-rape victims have more say over what happens to rape victims than rape victims?

  
  What do you mean like this? Are you basically saying that someone would have to be raped to comprehend the moral side of it? I could just be completely misunderstanding you.