Oklahoma lawmakers want men to approve all abortions

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is indefensible.

[Deblano]

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

Something like this happened several months ago IIRC.

[TDAS04]

Despicable.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Haven't we been down this road? Republicans are pro-birth and then they're pro-you're-on-your-own.

There's nothing pro-life in not wanting everyone to have access to health care when they are sick.
There's nothing pro-life about sending people overseas to die in times of war.
There's nothing pro-life about cutting welfare benefits and food stamps to those who are just barely above water.

Despicable how they put themselves on their high horses as "family values Christians" because they fight so hard to defend a cluster of cells but when that cluster of cells turns into a fetus and is born, they turn their backs on it and tell it to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, because that's definitely what Jesus would do.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The bolded part is what I've seen in this thread so far.

This is what the abortion debate seems like:

-A man is murdering people, and has been doing so for decades.
-Nine people are in a room, and are about to take a vote on whether or not to call the police about this man.
-Four people want to immediately call the police.
-Three people don't actually think that the man is guilty, so they see no point in calling the cops.
-One person says that, "While I personally believe he shouldn't be killing people, I shouldn't force my morality on others."
-Another person says "We all agree that killing people isn't ideal, but his victims are mostly poor people.  And I don't see any of you volunteering to pay for his future victims medical bills.  That means that you don't really care about the lives of his victims."

So they voted 5-4 to not call the police.  The 5 were convinced that they had a moral high ground and attacked the 4, claiming that calling the cops on the murderer would mean the establishment of a theocracy.

[emailking]

Couldn't she just get a guy friend (or heck even a relative) to say he gives her permission? Unless they do a genetic test, how would anyone know if he's the father or not?

But yeah this is a terrible way to stop abortions. The primary focus should be on preventing the need for them in the first place, rather than coming up with creative ways of stopping women who want one.

[Beet]

How about this: I will become pro-life the day Republicans pass the Equal Rights Amendment. It will never happen.

So you believe that abortion is murder?  If so, there is no excuse for wanting to keep it legal.

Lol, no.

Then you would never be pro-life, even if Republicans did pass the ERA.

It is true I will never be "pro life", because the Republicans will never pass it.

[Torie]

Some of these anti-abortion activists act as if, to borrow an analogy about the old Soviet Union, that they are going down a hotel hallway, trying all the doorknobs, to see if any of the doors are unlocked. The only problem is that they just think it is a hotel. In reality, it is a hallway in a jail house, where all the doors are locked, and even if some were not, finding the ones that were unlocked, is something they really don't want to find at all. So it's all a frolic and a detour (a phase I found out that when studying for the NY Bar has a legal provenance - who knew? )

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If any of you are on AAD you really must read Bushie's opinion on this in our Forum Community board. 

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

No, it's not good in theory.  The woman has to carry a growing thing inside her for nine months.  The man just has to stick it in her and cum.

[Maxwell]

The oklahoma legislature is filled with scoundrels, and for the most part, this is a distraction from their dreadful economic legacy of cutting taxes and then, SURPRISE, not being able to fund anything, so they have to take an axe to public education and higher education. and they're going to continue to take an axe to things that matter because they're too brainless to realize why they're in this mess (tax cuts that were supposed to trigger growth, which didn't) and keep trying to balance the budget on one year gimmicks.

socialism in oklahoma really is long over due for a comeback.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yet America voted for Trump, who made it very clear that Roe would be gone under him. I trust abortion polls about as far as I can throw them.

...

I mean, there's no way that you didn't know that Hillary won the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes, and there's no way it just slipped your mind.

The nationwide popular vote means about as much to me as a speck of dust on the ground. Both are useless.

That's fine, but you know that "America voted for Trump" is an objectively false statement. Why would anyone ever try to be wrong on purpose?

Because narratives.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[Maxwell]

They really need to pass a ballot initiative in Oklahoma to allow aborting lawmakers from public office

they would just try to over-ride the ballot initiative like they're doing for the ballot initiatives that just passed.

[dead0man]

     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.

Indeed, just like the anti-gunners.


Obviously (right?) this is unconstitutional and is never going to be law.

[Person Man]

     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.

Indeed, just like the anti-gunners.


Obviously (right?) this is unconstitutional and is never going to be law.

At either rate, do these groups just have lawyers sit in a room all day coming up with new crazy laws?

[Devout Centrist]

     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.

Indeed, just like the anti-gunners.


Obviously (right?) this is unconstitutional and is never going to be law.

Never underestimate the idiots in this nation

[publicunofficial]

If any of you are on AAD you really must read Bushie's opinion on this in our Forum Community board. 

I can only imagine.

[MasterJedi]

It's Joklahoma, they want this while worshiping their golden Trump statues like Bushie is on FB right now.

[Badger]

If any of you are on AAD you really must read Bushie's opinion on this in our Forum Community board. 

I'm SO torn between responding "pass!" or "link?"

[libertpaulian]

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

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Yeah.  The only legitimate reason for the state to interfere with abortion is if what is being terminated is considered to be a human being.  So called "man's rights" don't have anything to do with abortion.  At most, one could reasonably argue they have something to do with the degree to which a man has an obligation to support their child if it is brought to term.  But the societal case for not allowing deadbeat dads to default on supporting their kids just because they don't want to is sufficiently compelling, that anyone arguing that would justifiably lose.