Oklahoma Senate Passes Personhood Act, Bans All Abortion and Contraception

This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.

To view other archive projects go to https://archives.mabination.com

paladin wrote on 2012-02-22 08:56

Question remains
how did this even pass
I would think the more liberal elements of the senate would be like
too touche
Kollin wrote on 2012-02-22 09:00

Quote from Hazeri;782358:
Never did once said my statement was a fact, if you're going to be such an ass about it I'll go an add "IN MY OPINION" all bolded and maximum size to my original post for your convenience.

[SIZE="7"]IN MY OPINION[/SIZE] Anyone who supports bloody murder of a human being can be also called Pro-death. Happy now?

Well, with that being said

[Image: http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z384/kollin1/Yourpointofviewisstupid.jpg]
Kollin wrote on 2012-02-22 09:01

Quote from Hazeri;782358:
Never did once said my statement was a fact, if you're going to be such an ass about it I'll go an add "IN MY OPINION" all bolded and maximum size to my original post for your convenience.

[SIZE="7"]IN MY OPINION[/SIZE] Anyone who supports bloody murder of a human being can be also called Pro-death. Happy now?

Well, with that being said

[Image: http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z384/kollin1/Yourpointofviewisstupid.jpg]
Hazeri wrote on 2012-02-22 09:02

Quote from Kollin;782370:
Well, with that being said

[Image: http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z384/kollin1/Yourpointofviewisstupid.jpg]

I could say the same for yours, I still don't get what point are you trying to convey...
Skye wrote on 2012-02-22 09:33

Okied dokie, back on topic~
I think some side banter on abortion issues is ok, but not when we're all flat out being hateful.
Kueh wrote on 2012-02-22 09:34

Quote from Chiyuri;782224:
If "Life" is importent.. why are animals been grown only to be murdered and ate by people?
The second the sperm and the egg colide, can you take it out of the female host and throw it in society for it to survive on it's own?

Personaly, I'm Pro-Soul. If it doesn't have a soul, it doesn't have rights. So that include unborn humans and human baby till the age of 1.

I'm not sure what you mean to say with the first sentence. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic, but I'll humor you and say that I limit my consumption of meats to the point that I'm almost a vegetarian. I'm also not sure what you mean to say with the second sentence.

As soon as the child is born, can you take it away from the mother and let it fend for itself? Once it fends for itself in one environment, can you put it in another? If it masters all of those, can you put it in the ocean, or in outer space?

I don't know how to quantify a soul, so I can't speak about what has a soul and what doesn't have a soul, but I can definitely say that I disagree to what you said that a human child has no rights until it makes it to age 1. Whether or not life begins at conception, I'm confident it isn't a debate about the state of humanhood once the child is actually born.

Out of curiosity, what is it about a soul that it takes a year for one to form?
Juno wrote on 2012-02-22 11:50

Perspective is key here. On one side, freedoms are being infringed. On the other, we're looking at infanticide. If we presume that infanticide is indeed happening, any reasonable person will sacrifice the freedoms in question, or at least, that is the precedent we've set as a race.

So yeah, the actions can come off as stupid, but it's really a rather desperate situation from that point of view. Also, it has nothing to do with religion or opinion. There's also precious little room for compromise, considering what's at stake.

In this case, the bill is definitely in need of repair. There are many things in there that weren't intended.
TA wrote on 2012-02-22 15:14

Quote from Juno;782769:
Perspective is key here. On one side, freedoms are being infringed. On the other, we're looking at infanticide. If we presume that infanticide is indeed happening, any reasonable person will sacrifice the freedoms in question, or at least, that is the precedent we've set as a race.

So yeah, the actions can come off as stupid, but it's really a rather desperate situation from that point of view. Also, it has nothing to do with religion or opinion. There's also precious little room for compromise, considering what's at stake.

In this case, the bill is definitely in need of repair. There are many things in there that weren't intended.

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin
Froglord wrote on 2012-02-22 15:33

Quote from Cheerios;779542:
if i was american i would be questioning where my tax money is being used on.......

Incubating Mutant Pitbull-eagles on plum island
Investing in military
Paying obama's world charity plan.
Hazeri wrote on 2012-02-22 15:51

Quote from TA;782897:
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Yes of course, let's violate the infant's freedom and their right to live because we must protect the mother's choice to bloody murder them.
Unfortunately, women's bodies become shared when they're pregnant, they carry a life within them and that life must also be respected. Babies aren't formed out of thin air, they're the result of the "parents" actions. So until we find the way to take the babies out of your wombs without killing them, either deal with it or don't fuck raw at all.
TA wrote on 2012-02-22 15:56

Sorry, but I can't even take some of you guys seriously... lol

This is where I bow out of this conversation.

Adieu.
:bye:

edit: Okay, let me actually go ahead and explain myself first:

I don't consider a fetus any more a human, until a certain point, than I would consider an egg a chicken.

Would you feel bad about cutting off a chicken's head? Maybe a little? How about cracking an egg? No? How about accidentally spilling an egg and then throwing it away? Needlessly slaughtering chickens.

But, I digress. I ask you: What makes us human?

The ability to reason? Well, that doesn't happen until a child is 3.

The use of language and an ability to think in symbolic form? Well, that doesn't happen until 2.

We aren't even talking about fetus here. We're talking about years outside of the womb.

A fetus is nothing more than an arrangement of cells. It is nothing until it ages and develops the ability to be more than that. You can have a bleeding heart for them if you want. I certainly won't.

What is being killed are not humans, they are merely an arrangement of cells. They have none of the things that make us human (other than our cells) until far, far further down their path of development.

If you want to shed tears of blood for the instant sperm touches egg, then why don't you start crying rivers for all the men that fap every night and kill potentially billions (and billions) of "humans?"

Sit on that for awhile.
Chiyuri wrote on 2012-02-22 20:11

Quote from Kueh;782447:
I'm not sure what you mean to say with the first sentence. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic, but I'll humor you and say that I limit my consumption of meats to the point that I'm almost a vegetarian. I'm also not sure what you mean to say with the second sentence.

Well congradulation, from a "life is importent" point of view, you are then almost not a murderer.. almost...
From my point of view you aren't at all through.

Quote from Kueh;782447:
As soon as the child is born, can you take it away from the mother and let it fend for itself? Once it fends for itself in one environment, can you put it in another? If it masters all of those, can you put it in the ocean, or in outer space?

Once the child is born, it cries. It's in it's own way trying to survive with whatever means it can.
But even that is kind of inrrelevant to me since in the end it's soulless.
As for the ocean and outer space.. Even a fully grown human would have trouble living in those, if not instant death..

Quote from Kueh;782447:
I don't know how to quantify a soul, so I can't speak about what has a soul and what doesn't have a soul, but I can definitely say that I disagree to what you said that a human child has no rights until it makes it to age 1. Whether or not life begins at conception, I'm confident it isn't a debate about the state of humanhood once the child is actually born.

Out of curiosity, what is it about a soul that it takes a year for one to form?

It's a really hard thing to quantify.
As for why you disagree with me, it's simply because you seem to value life while I value souls. Our priorities are different which end up conflicting on things like abortion or even the life of a less than a year baby. Of course, no one can say one is really more right than the other. The only difference is how many people agree with you and how many agree with me(which is quite probably low) But even that means nothing in the end since majority doesn't make ideas true, it simply make it easier to inforce.

So in the end, I'm just another random person on the thread, posting her own point of view and opinion. It serve nothing much to the first topic like so many other post.

As for your curiousity..
[SPOILER="Spoiler"]As far as I can tell, souls don't form on themselves. Once the spiritual system of the human infant reach a certain degree of maturity, it receive a soul from the world which is bound to it. A soul is not a conciousness or anything like that. Think of it more as a guide. It pull the person's psychological develepment in a certain direction. It also record specific events of the host's life, mostly events where the host lived through intense or strong emotionnal state, very often it record the death of the host.
Once the spiritual system disintegrate from death, the soul is unbound and return to the world.

But in the end, you can think of this as just another religious point of view, very similar to buddhism. Except that from my point of view, it's closer to been facts than just a religion to believe in.[/SPOILER]
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-02-22 20:55

Quote from TA;782897:
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin

As much as I love that quote, I am shocked at how misused it is in this situation. First off, what kind of protection does the woman get by trading in her "right" to kill her own child? What about the the child's freedom to live? Does not the child get both freedom and protection if the woman sacrifices her "freedom"?

Benjamin Franklin is rolling in his grave.
Juno wrote on 2012-02-22 21:05

Quote from TA;782897:
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Classy, but it's not a matter of trading freedom for protection. Even if it was, a quote is a terrible way to make a point.

As for your egg thing, they're generally unfertilized and thus no one cares. If the average Joe cracked open a fertilized egg, he'd be in for a shock.
RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-23 00:24

Quote from Juno;782996:
Classy, but it's not a matter of trading freedom for protection. Even if it was, a quote is a terrible way to make a point.

As for your egg thing, they're generally unfertilized and thus no one cares. If the average Joe cracked open a fertilized egg, he'd be in for a shock.

This.

I'd feel really fucking guilty if I cracked open a fertilized chicken egg. I don't view animals on the same level as people, and I don't think people are really "human" until later on in the pregnancy, but the point I'm trying to make is that it isn't just her body to some people. Depending on how you view things, it could very well be killing. Maybe you don't take it that way. Maybe you think you should insult everyone who does, but that's the argument for it.

« First ‹ Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6