Oklahoma lawmakers want men to approve all abortions

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.

Doesn't Jesus say otherwise?

[Mr. Smith]

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

I sympathize with this kind of thinking to a certain degree...but there are simply waaaaay too many unintended and horrifying consequences that override that basis, and that's without the cynical way it's used to distract from other issues, nor the unenforceable nature inherent in it.

[dead0man]

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

I sympathize with this kind of thinking to a certain degree...but there are simply waaaaay too many unintended and horrifying consequences that override that basis, and that's without the cynical way it's used to distract from other issues, nor the unenforceable nature inherent in it.

indeed.

It's not fair.  Women have to carry around a living thing in them for 9 months, dealing with everything that comes with that (not that it's all horrible, pregnant women get treated like minor gods in my experience...and rightfully so), but they get to be the only ones to decide if that pile of mush becomes a human or not.  Men don't have to carry anything around inside them, but they get (legally) zero say in whether that mush pile gets a name or not.

It's not fair, but it is what it is and until men or science can make a baby, that's how it should stay.

[Ogre Mage]

What this bill is actually about is men controlling women.  It sounds like something from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

[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!

[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. 

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

Take "pass".  Reading it would make you vomit.

[Badger]

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

spoken like a true paultard basement-dwelling dud who can't get a date.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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.

[RFayette]

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!

This.  Which I have no problem with, I might add.

[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.

[RFayette]

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.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

oh ffs please stop this

[America Needs R'hllor]

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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[publicunofficial]

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

I sympathize with this kind of thinking to a certain degree...but there are simply waaaaay too many unintended and horrifying consequences that override that basis, and that's without the cynical way it's used to distract from other issues, nor the unenforceable nature inherent in it.

indeed.

It's not fair.  Women have to carry around a living thing in them for 9 months, dealing with everything that comes with that (not that it's all horrible, pregnant women get treated like minor gods in my experience...and rightfully so), but they get to be the only ones to decide if that pile of mush becomes a human or not.  Men don't have to carry anything around inside them, but they get (legally) zero say in whether that mush pile gets a name or not.

It's not fair, but it is what it is and until men or science can make a baby, that's how it should stay.

The day science finds a way for a man to get pregnant, is the day before abortion is fully legalized once and for all.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

[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

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

This coming from someone who thinks people care who he "endorses" in Senate races  

[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.

[Maxwell]

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.

[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?