Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law

Aunt Spiker · May 5, 2010

dadman said:
The eyes begin to develop early in the fourth week after conception.
During this extremely critical week the esophagus, gallbladder, liver, lungs, pancreas, pharynx, stomach, and trachea also begin to form.
And, toward the end of the week, the nose, tongue, and spleen also start to develop.

At the average time when a woman is aware that she is pregnant
(the fifth to sixth week after conception),
the preborn human being living inside her is metabolizing nutrition, excreting waste, moving, sucking his or her thumb, growing, and doing many other things that non-living things just do not do.
As early as 21 days after conception, the baby’s heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother’s.

(Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310;
Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles,
From Conception to Birth, p.217.)
At 40 days after conception, brain waves can be read on an EEG, or an electroencephalogram.
(Dr. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, JAMA, Oct.12, 1964, p.113.)

A lot of pro abortionists - like me - don't weigh the development of the fetus in with our personal issues that, we deem, are more important than satisfying someone else's need to decide if we're going to have more kids. . . or the fetus' future.

I already have kids and I know what it will demand of me to have more (physically, emotionally, mentally)

While I don't mind people's efforts to make having an abortion more difficult (in part because I'm not affected by such things) I do mind people trying to force their beliefs on me when they don't understand the mindset behind my beliefs.

If you don't understand why people feel the way they do and make the choice to abort - then you won't have much sway when you're confronting them.

Eyes, hair, a coo and all that baby sweetness does NOT make being pregnant, birthing or otherwise raising a child some sort of easy street of blessings.

misterman · May 5, 2010

What about health reasons? Shouldn't the abortion "doctor" know the insides via ultrasound before he preforms his execution?

Do you get a colonoscopy before an enema?

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 5, 2010

ADK_Forever said:
Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law - UPI.com

Once again, the party of "small government" :roll: , the Repubs, continues its efforts to give gov't more and more intrusive powers, this time allowing them to stick their arrogant noses into women's health rights.

Actually, they're sticking their noses in the baby's health rights.

It's decidedly unhealthy for babies when they're murdered by mommy.

So stay focused on what's real.

Toothpicvic · May 5, 2010

ADK_Forever said:
Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law - UPI.com

Once again, the party of "small government" :roll: , the Repubs, continues its efforts to give gov't more and more intrusive powers, this time allowing them to stick their arrogant noses into women's health rights.

The law is stupid and pointless. I don't care either way.

Aunt Spiker · May 5, 2010

misterman said:
Do you get a colonoscopy before an enema?

It's the only reasonable point, though.

But I think that would be more an issue up to the Dr, yes?

If Dr's in general preferred, for the ease of their practice, to do an ultrasound before an abortion I presume few people would complain? It's just the government dictating things that rubs people the wrong way.

But welcome to government mandated health care measures. Now everything health care related will be dictated and determined necessary or unnecessary by everyone but you and your Dr.

Oddly, still, I have no problem with it. Maybe I'm just foolish in my belief that anyone who WANTS an abortion won't be swayed by such things. If they are - then where's the harm?

upsideguy · May 5, 2010

texmaster said:
Spare us your phony indignation. Most Liberals LOVE big government. They just oppose it when its something they don't agree with.

That was voted on by the people who speak for the people. This activist judge circumvented that process and imposed her own personal politics.

1. I think poster was only trying to call out conservative hypocrisy here, not argue for smaller government.

2. So you believe the judge imposed her own personal views because you read her decision and disagree with it or are you just forming an uninformed opinion because you don't like the judges decision (remember the "will of the people" can and should be set aside if the law is over reaching. Our system is designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority)?

rivrrat · May 5, 2010

Aunt Spiker said:
Oddly, still, I have no problem with it. Maybe I'm just foolish in my belief that anyone who WANTS an abortion won't be swayed by such things. If they are - then where's the harm?

The point isn't whether they are swayed or not. That's completely irrelevant.

The point is that the government should NOT be in the business of mandating medical procedures.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 5, 2010

rivrrat said:
The point isn't whether they are swayed or not. That's completely irrelevant.

The point is that the government should NOT be in the business of mandating medical procedures.

The government IS supposed to be in the business of protecting life.

Babies are alive, the government should be protecting them.

Aunt Spiker · May 5, 2010

rivrrat said:
The point isn't whether they are swayed or not. That's completely irrelevant.

The point is that the government should NOT be in the business of mandating medical procedures.

Exactly - which is why we're screwed now that the government has been given permission to dictate and dabble in healthcare.

Because, it didn't use to be in the government's business and interest - but now it is.

misterman · May 5, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The government IS supposed to be in the business of protecting life.

Babies are alive, the government should be protecting them.

Fetuses aren't babies. Tumors are alive.

Stop playing the same old circular argument word games. They're lame.

rivrrat · May 5, 2010

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The government IS supposed to be in the business of protecting life.

Babies are alive, the government should be protecting them.

Flies are alive too. :shock:

Fact of the matter is that abortion IS LEGAL. Whether you like it or not. And since it IS legal, then no, it is not the government's job to mandate medical procedures for its citizens to "protect life".

rivrrat · May 5, 2010

Aunt Spiker said:
Exactly - which is why we're screwed now that the government has been given permission to dictate and dabble in healthcare.

Because, it didn't use to be in the government's business and interest - but now it is.

Oh I don't disagree with you there. I'm quite sure we'll be seeing a ****load more medical procedures being forced upon us. You know, for OUR own good. :doh

Deuce · May 5, 2010

rivrrat said:
Oh I don't disagree with you there. I'm quite sure we'll be seeing a ****load more medical procedures being forced upon us. You know, for OUR own good. :doh

Which makes the conservatives arguing in favor of this really confusing to me. THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO OPPOSE.

TheHat · May 5, 2010

Orion said:
If you had an internal tumor that was hours away from being removed, it wouldn't make sense for the doctor to stop everything and give you an ultrasound, just to make sure you want it removed. This is no different.

The lawsuit has teeth because there is clearly a discrimination in the medical practice here. Why are abortions required to have an ultrasound beforehand? In the case of pre-natal ultrasounds, they are conducted to inspect the health of the embryo or fetus. If it's about to be aborted, its health status is irrelevant.

The law is a thinly veiled appeal to emotion to guilt trip the woman into not going through with it. That, and it's a total waste of medical resources. The ultrasound costs money, and who is supposed to pay for it? The woman? The taxpayers? The clinics? It is little more than an obstruction to try and prevent an abortion from taking place, and it's an attempt to bypass Roe v Wade.

It's also definitely a big government attitude, except this time it comes from the side of social conservativism, which you obviously support. You can't be against the health care bill but be in favor of this law. It equally lacks logic and is an intrusive use of power.

Since when was a baby a tumore exactly?

misterman · May 5, 2010

TheHat said:
Since when was a baby a tumore exactly?

Since when was a fetus a baby?

Try something harder, that was a softball.

TheHat · May 5, 2010

liblady said:
your analogies don't make sense. what is the purpose of an ultrasound for a fetus that is going to be aborted? there is no earthly reason for it. given that, this law is ridiculous.

Its simple, the pro-death crowd knows, that a woman who sees her baby in an ultrasound, is less likely to abort her baby.

Even the former head of NARAL, realizes that the ultrasound is bringing women into enlightenment on the issue of abortion and that their baby is more then just a "blob of cells".

Of course, we can just keep hoping Planned Parenthood will tell the truth to the women who go into their death clinics, which we know to not be the case.

TheHat · May 5, 2010

misterman said:
Since when was a fetus a baby?

Try something harder, that was a softball.

Since when was a fetus, other then a baby? You do realize, the term "fetus" is just a term given to a developing baby, that is no different then newborn, toddler, adolescent, adult right?

Calling the baby a fetus within its designated time frame in the human life cycle, doesn't make it not human or not a baby.

But I guess you knew this already right?

Try something harder, that was a softball.:2wave:

rivrrat · May 5, 2010

Deuce said:
Which makes the conservatives arguing in favor of this really confusing to me. THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO OPPOSE.

The people arguing FOR this kind of government intrusion are letting their feelings about abortion cloud their judgment on the matter.

TheHat · May 5, 2010

Deuce said:
Which makes the conservatives arguing in favor of this really confusing to me. THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUPPOSED TO OPPOSE.

This "procedure", involves the well being of another individual life, that is on the verge of being killed simply b/c the mother doesn't want to deal with her own actions in life.

misterman · May 5, 2010

TheHat said:
Its simple, the pro-death crowd knows, that a woman who sees her baby in an ultrasound, is less likely to abort her baby.

Even the former head of NARAL, realizes that the ultrasound is bringing women into enlightenment on the issue of abortion and that their baby is more then just a "blob of cells".

Of course, we can just keep hoping Planned Parenthood will tell the truth to the women who go into their death clinics, which we know to not be the case.

See you in court.

rivrrat · May 5, 2010

TheHat said:
Since when was a fetus, other then a baby? You do realize, the term "fetus" is just a term given to a developing baby, that is no different then newborn, toddler, adolescent, adult right?

Calling the baby a fetus within its designated time frame in the human life cycle, doesn't make it not human or not a baby.

But I guess you knew this already right?

Try something harder, that was a softball.:2wave:

so... a fetus is 'no different than' an adult? :shock:

Now THAT'S a new spin on the old tired argument!

misterman · May 5, 2010

TheHat said:
Since when was a fetus, other then a baby? You do realize, the term "fetus" is just a term given to a developing baby, that is no different then newborn, toddler, adolescent, adult right?

No, it's not.

A fetus is a fetus.

Calling the baby a fetus within its designated time frame in the human life cycle, doesn't make it not human or not a baby.

It's a fetus. Not a baby. Or a newborn, toddler, adolescent, or adult. A fetus.

Calling it anything else is nothing more than a lame circular argument, or the fallacy of composition.

TheHat · May 5, 2010

rivrrat said:
so... a fetus is 'no different than' an adult? :shock:

No, that is not what I said. I said the term, is no different in the sense of describing the human life cycle.

Do you know what the different stages are within the human life cycle? Fetus and adult are 2 of them. But at no point does calling a baby a "fetus" make it anything less then a baby or a human being.

Now THAT'S a new spin on the old tired argument!

Its not spin. You just didn't understand what I was saying.

rivrrat · May 5, 2010

TheHat said:
Its simple, the pro-death crowd knows, that a woman who sees her baby in an ultrasound, is less likely to abort her baby.

ROFL

Anywho, this has nothing to do with the mother changing her mind or not. That is entirely irrelevant. For the last time, it has to do with the government forcing a medical procedure on a woman.

Of course, we can just keep hoping Planned Parenthood will tell the truth to the women who go into their death clinics, which we know to not be the case.

Well, except for the fact that they DO. It was actually a PP clinic that required I have an ultrasound prior to my abortion.

Want to try again?

TheHat said:
This "procedure", involves the well being of another individual life, that is on the verge of being killed simply b/c the mother doesn't want to deal with her own actions in life.

The mother IS dealing with her actions and consequences of them. Hence the abortion. :doh

TheHat · May 5, 2010

misterman said:
See you in court.

What, here is former NARAL President saying as much:

Why Young Voters Are Lukewarm on Abortion Rights - Newsweek.com

"...Certainly, the anti-abortion movement helped fuel this shift in the attitudes of the young by reframing the abortion debate around the fetus rather than the pregnant woman. Millennials also came of age as ultrasounds provided increasingly clear pictures of fetal development. "The technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being," admits former NARAL president Kate Michelman. "The other side has been able to use the technology to its own end." Thirty-eight states now consider it a separate crime to kill a fetus in an act of aggression against a pregnant woman, and just last week Nebraska banned abortions after 20 weeks because of the possibility that the fetus could feel pain..."

Her words, not mine. They know the score when it comes to women seeing an ultrasound vs being kept in the dark.

Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law

Cheese

Cheese

Pragmatic Idealist

Goddess of Bacon

Cheese

Goddess of Bacon

Goddess of Bacon

Outer space potato man

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Goddess of Bacon

Well-known member

Goddess of Bacon

Well-known member

Goddess of Bacon

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency