Oklahoma lawmakers want men to approve all abortions

[DC Al Fine]

What's up with Oklahoma proposing really strange laws over abortion?

Something like this happened several months ago IIRC.

     It's really about restricting access to abortion. As long as the result would be fewer abortions, they don't care if the law itself actually makes any kind of sense.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

[DC Al Fine]

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.

Social conservatism:  The radical idea that the unborn child is still, well, a child and deserving of rights.

No, social conservativism: the idea that science is stupid and the TRUE facts are the ones we believed for centuries, regardless of how many people they hurt. Like the 'fact' that an unborn child before a pretty advanced level in the pregnancy can be considered a living being. Or the 'fact' that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Internet Arguments: the radical idea that repeating your opponent's views but inventing nonsensical justifications for them that nobody would ever actually use means you have basically won.

I lol'd

[DC Al Fine]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

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?