Oklahoma lawmakers want men to approve all abortions

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This is a good thing in theory, the father contributes just as much genetically to a child as the mother, but is unworkable in practice.

A man being able to force a woman to carry something as serious and potentially violating as a pregnancy in her body is f**ked up and wrong.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

Men don't have a right to force women to do things with their own bodies.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This type of thinking is merely the logical extention for people who think they have a 'stake' in women's reproductive choices and their bodies.

This. Absolutely disgusting, despicable and horrendous. Outlawing abortion, like some people here suggested, is a crime against humanity.

I will never understand social liberalism.

Social liberalism: The radical idea that forcing a teenage girl be traumatized by being forced to hold a rapists seed for the sake of a mindless lump of flesh is a bad thing to do.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

oh ffs please stop this

Why? Maybe I'm juat clueless about this type of thinking because abortion, like guns, is not that much of an issue in my country and seems more like an American obsession, but is it really hard to accept that new facts have been learned since priests thousands of years ago wrote a book?

Apparently it's no harder than it is to accept that just because we have learned new facts, that doesn't affect morality.  At most it might affect how we apply the principles of that ancient book to our somewhat altered society, but not the basic ideas therein.  Societal changes (principally the adoption of the welfare state in place of having children take care of their parents in old age) have rendered the basis of the bias against homosexuality suspect moot, but they haven't affected the issue of abortion much.  Modern medicine allows us to use something a little less subjective than quickening can be used to demark the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to consideration under the law, but the basic reasons are still sound.

I understand why someone would personally object to abortion, but in today's world, we know enough to render it completely unjustifiable to force a woman, by law, to go through a pregnancy. The grand majority of abortions are in early months, when the fetus is definitely not conscious. the anti-choice (as opposed to real pro-life) folk oppose abortion even then, and in my view that's the equivalent of torture.

What an intelligent, thought out post.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

ah yes, the one of two natural conclusions of youthful libertarianism.

What's the other one, and is it less awful?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

oh ffs please stop this

Why? Maybe I'm juat clueless about this type of thinking because abortion, like guns, is not that much of an issue in my country and seems more like an American obsession, but is it really hard to accept that new facts have been learned since priests thousands of years ago wrote a book?

Apparently it's no harder than it is to accept that just because we have learned new facts, that doesn't affect morality.  At most it might affect how we apply the principles of that ancient book to our somewhat altered society, but not the basic ideas therein.  Societal changes (principally the adoption of the welfare state in place of having children take care of their parents in old age) have rendered the basis of the bias against homosexuality suspect moot, but they haven't affected the issue of abortion much.  Modern medicine allows us to use something a little less subjective than quickening can be used to demark the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to consideration under the law, but the basic reasons are still sound.

I understand why someone would personally object to abortion, but in today's world, we know enough to render it completely unjustifiable to force a woman, by law, to go through a pregnancy. The grand majority of abortions are in early months, when the fetus is definitely not conscious. the anti-choice (as opposed to real pro-life) folk oppose abortion even then, and in my view that's the equivalent of torture.

What an intelligent, thought out post.

Why bother debating someone who's clearly focused on beating up the farmer's strawman?

Not to mention that comparing pregnancy to torture is, err, pretty ridiculous.

No, it isn't. At all. An unwanted pregnancy can be horrible. Apparently you don't have the ability to emphasize with women who have to live with these things, because the idea wouldn't be at all ridiculous if you did.

Plus, the scientific fact is, fetuses aren't conscious or thinking beings. And parrotguy wasn't straw-manning.