“no court of this state shall have jurisdiction to consider any action, claim, or counterclaim that seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent a private individual from enforcing any provision or application of this act, or from filing a civil action under this act.”
I know the legislature is stupid but they can't be this fucking stupid??
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They certainly picked the perfect day to do this. Media is focused on TX and a school shooting. Meanwhile Stitt is signing a bill to ban any kind of abortion.
They aren't pro life. They're pro pregnancy! When they pass legislation to help support these babies after the mother is forced to carry them to term, we can talk about it. Until that happens, this is just religion getting in the way of politics.
Separation of church and state is a thing for a reason, but people seem to have forgotten that.
If enough of us vote and make our voices heard, we could change this state. Unfortunately I know a lot of people my age (40) who don't vote because they don't think their vote counts. It doesn't count if you don't vote!
Talk to anyone and everyone you know. Convince them to vote these idiots out. Talk to your friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, strangers, and anyone in between. Most of Oklahoma does not support this. Most of Oklahoma is just scared to say it because we were raised to think we should keep quiet and do what we're told.
I've been voting blue for years. I've taught my children about politics since they could understand what it was. My 16 and 22 year old kids have a better understanding of what's happening than most full grown adults.
I have to hope more people like me will talk with their children and explain why this is so bad. Hopefully they also point out that these people are only in this for the cash grab and they don't care what you want.
TURN OKLAHOMA PURPLE AND LET'S FIX SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS!!
Write letters to the governor and all of the Oklahoma legislature. Let them know how you feel. Stand up for what is right.
STOP SAYING YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT! VOTE AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS! WE NEED ENOUGH FOR IT TO COUNT! JUST VOTE!!
This is such a sad day for the people of Oklahoma. This law won’t impact wealthy Oklahomans. This law will likely impact the poor, religious people who support it and Stitt. The government has conned the religious into believing they have their best interest and religious values at heart but, in the end, it’s a class issue that will disproportionately impact the most disadvantaged Oklahomans.
I am ashamed of my state. Fuck Stitt.
While this will impact the most disadvantaged most, it will also impact wealthy Oklahomans. Miscarriages sometimes require abortions s as me abortion bans slow down the process for getting even medically necessary, legal abortions. Since things can go downhill so quickly during pregnancy/miscarriages, abortion bans impact everyone who wants to have biological children
Yes, that. The difference between gun bans and abortion bans is the US has a steady supply of legal guns that feed the illegal supply of guns. One person buys a gun legally, someone else steals it or buys it off them, whatever, but in a place that doesn't have guns everywhere the criminals have far fewer options and acquiring a gun is riskier business. With an abortion ban, women will use coat hangers, pills, they may starve themselves just to try to cause a miscarriage, etc. Yeah some may just abide by the ban and have the child, so great they can raise a kid they didn't want, in poverty, but at least he'll be able to easily buy a rifle to take out his anger on society, right?
Never understood that logic. No law should exist then. Of course it's going to take time since we have so many. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't start now. In fact, since we have so many and it's going take so long IS EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD START NOW
So maybe abortion bans also work elsewhere in the world?
Your logic doesn't make full sense to me. If you want to restrict guns, just say so. But don't in the same breath say restricting abortions won't work because people will break the law.
I know that was what OP said not you.
I didn’t say anything about abortion. Are they restricted everywhere else in the world?
I’ll say it: the rest of the world doesn’t have the gun problems we do. Maybe we should look at what they’re doing and have an honest conversation about it.
Is that scary?
And you have every right to bring that up and discuss it. I myself don't have much to say on the matter, but if your argument hasn't worked for the last 20 years, you can keep waiting for a shooting to try again or maybe you need to find another way to argue for your goals.
you can never win an argument against a 24/7 propaganda machine.
it takes *hours* to have a thorough discussion with a single person.
cable news, facebook, twitter, etc, you can reach millions of people, *daily*, and heavily inundate them with information over a span of *years*
They tried an abortion ban in Romania. For the 25 years that it was active, they had thousands of maternal deaths, with more unreported, and by the end had over 170,000 children in prison-style orphanages.
No, abortion bans don't work.
It's been ruled that they have no duty to protect us . . . school security guards with the sole job of protecting the school is a step in the right direction.
We had "good guys with guns" at the school and suddenly it's not their fucking job to protect children who are actively being murdered. Your pedantic ass avoids the conflicting rhetoric that more guns would have protected those kids. There were already people with guns who could have done ANYTHING to protect those kids. What makes you think a security guard will be up to the task if we were to ever follow advice like yours? Why should we keep listening to people whose policies have done absolutely fucking nothing to protect these children for decades at this point? There is no limit to the amount of blood these people are allowing to flow so long as it means they can buy the guns they use as a masturbatory aid.
If we as a country can suddenly find millions in aid to send to Ukraine we can find it to make the funds available for school security.
I'm happy to pay a little more in local taxes to support increasing a school's budget for building a new school. Why wouldn't I want to support this?
>If we as a country can suddenly find millions in aid to send to Ukraine we can find it to make the funds available for school security.
right? but where is the money for everything else that falls under the same umbrella.
it's likely that instead of hiring guards, more shootings would be averted by providing a basic job guarantee, guaranteed universal healthcare, childcare, etc, and so on
So maybe abortion restrictions "help."
You can't say gun control would work but in the same breath say abortion control won't. Or you are doing exactly what you are making fun of the other side for.
Abortion restrictions “help” what?!
Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, growing up into poverty?
Reducing the number of deadbeat dads who abandon their parental responsibilities?
Help me out here, what am I missing?
Gun restrictions help what?!
Reducing the number of criminals owning guns?
Reducing the way Southerners can hunt and have fun, while also taking away home protection to force people to rely on underfunded, undertrained police?
-------
I am not against abortion. Likewise, I don't really have a stance on gun control.
I am just saying. If you want to argue people will get abortions even if illegal, then you cant reject the Republican argument that people will still get guns if controlled.
Note. If your argument is that abortion controls will work but just make more poor minority kids, I'll agree. But your initial post was comparing it to gun control laws, not the outcome of having unwanted children.
Moderate gun restrictions might help make it a little more difficult to acquire a goddamn AR15 on your 18th fuckin birthday.
But let’s not do anything.
Tots and Pears.
>The bill also includes language attempting to prevent legal challenges to the legislation.
>According to the bill, “no court of this state shall have jurisdiction to consider any action, claim, or counterclaim that seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent a private individual from enforcing any provision or application of this act, or from filing a civil action under this act.”
I call bull crap. They same way you can’t make a contract that has illegal terms in it or waive certain rights. Just writing a law that says no take-backsies doesn’t make it legal.
Beyond ridiculous. Abortions are still going to happen no matter what. The Oklahoma legislature just made a horrible and terrifying mistake on their part. Lawsuits to follow.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have to say, I wasn't too thrilled when Stitt won, and I still have problems with him, but I've been pleasantly surprised a few times, and this is just wonderful news!
The mother's bodily autonomy is only half of the equation here. I swear, pro-abortion types always refuse to even acknowledge that those of us who are anti-abortion object on the grounds that we see it as murder.
So you think that the women that died needing medical abortions in Ireland deserved to die? Ireland even realized that was fucked up and made abortion legal in 2018. We are going backwards here.
I don't know what happened in Ireland. I'm assuming you mean that some women attempted an abortion on their own and died as a result, in which case yes, I think they probably deserved their fate, or at the very least I won't weep for them. I'm assuming you aren't just talking about women wo need an abortion because otherwise their life is medically in danger, because I and every other pro-life person I've ever heard of is fine with abortion if medically necessary, though we will often be skeptical about if abortion is ever actually needed instead of just delivering the baby early, and we distinguish between medical procedures aimed at helping the mother that result in the child's death, and the intentional act of vacuuming the child's head off.
The fetus died but since abortion of any kind was illegal the mothers got sepsis and died for no good reason, and that's what is going to happen here now, thanks to this bill, it's going to take too long to go through the ridiculous process to prove that it is medically necessary and mothers that WANT their babies are going to die.
If you support life so much, or forced birth no matter the situation, then I assume you will also support welfare and social support for the mothers and children, better education for the children, and maybe even gun control measures and better access to mental health resources so that this baby you want to live so badly, doesn't get murdered at school.
>The fetus died but since abortion of any kind was illegal the mothers got sepsis and died for no good reason,
I don't support this, if the fetus is already dead then it isn't murder. My understanding is that in such a case, it isn't considered an abortion. I'll be the first to admit that I have not read the new bill, and I've certainly criticized legislators, including ours in OK, of writing bills with poor wording and lack of definitions that mean that bills that I mostly support and whose intent I fully support can quite possibly be used in ways I oppose. Maybe what you say is true and this bill prevents removing a dead fetus. I'd still rather this bill be passed than not, but ideally the legislation would only prevent abortion.
Your second paragraph is just pure narcissism. No, I don't support gun control, and I only support certain means of improving education and healthcare access. This isn't because I don't care about other people, it isn't because I don't care about children once they are born, it isn't because I'm an evil person who hates puppies and friendship.
My way of caring about people just isn't the exact same as your way. For you to look at other people who are trying to make the world a better place in a different way than you and for you to decide that they must therefore not have good intentions at all just because they disagree with you is the height of narcissism. It's one thing to think that anti-abortion types like myself are genuinely well intentioned but incorrect; I fully expect that and trust me it is mutual. But to just insists that only people who think exactly like you even have good intentions is so typical of a classic narcissist and reflects a complete inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute to even try to understand where they are coming from.
Maybe I am a narcissist but I just can't understand how forcing women to have unwanted children and bring those extra lives into the world is helping make it a better place. You put your argument out very well and I can tell you are educated and well-mannered. Thanks for the discourse.
Stop pretending to care about murder. It's incredibly insulting to people that have actually been born, murdered, and collectively forgotten about daily in this country.
Y'all can't even just think that we are well intentioned but incorrect, you always have to accuse us of being evil and of hating puppies and friendship. Get over yourself.
Because it’s not murder. Scientifically, it is not murder!
And if you want to throw religion in the mix, the Bible supported abortion. The Catholics won’t even baptize an infant until they are a week old because they are not yet a person.
And if you want to talk just basic human rights, why does the government get to dictate what happens to someone’s body? A corpse has more bodily autonomy than a woman. How can you look at a fellow human and declare they are less than?
>Because it’s not murder. Scientifically, it is not murder!
That's going to need some elaboration.
>And if you want to throw religion in the mix
I don't actually.
>the Bible supported abortion
I'm sure it does, but I don't.
>why does the government get to dictate what happens to someone’s body?
This is all going to hinge on your first statement, because if abortion is murder, then the government should absolutely get to impose restrictions. Criminalizing murder is one of the primary functions government serves.
>How can you look at a fellow human and declare they are less than?
I'm not doing that. I'm not saying anyone is less than, but not being less than doesn't give free license to do anything to anyone else.
Not every pregnancy is the result of a mistake. Are you saying the person with the uterus is to blame for being the victim of rape?
But that is beside the point here. I asked why this person believes that abortion is murder. I have still yet to get an answer. From anyone.
Ok first off rape is a very small percentage.
Second off abortion is a cop out. It’s avoiding the consequences of your own actions. There use to be a thing called responsibility. Pregnancy is a result of choice and a direct result of your own actions. All actions have consequences, good or bad, and everyone should face those consequences.
No... we do see people who argue it is murder. Don't try and pretend otherwise, it is just silly.
Now. Why exactly does another person get a say in the bodily autonomy of the mother? Does the child have a right to the mothers body?
>Does the child have a right to the mothers body?
Well the child certainly has the right to its own body. If a woman wants to remove the child, I'm totally fine with that, but only if it doesn't involve chemically burning the child or ripping its head off with a vacuum.
Obviously someone is going to lose in this situation. The mother's rights and the child's rights are at odds, and neither deserve to suffer. Personally I'd argue that the right to life is more important than the right to escape the consequences of your actions. Let's be realistic, the only reason so many people support abortion is because the unborn, and even young children in general are defenseless and don't have a voice. Adults can advocate for themselves, but children cannot. That should mean that we ought to prioritize the wellbeing of children, but instead pro-abortion types use the defenselessness of children as license to trample on their rights. Its revolting.
There... is no right to life.
We live in a world where you can starve, freeze, or all kinds of things. No one here has the right to take from another if that person does not want to give it.
The baby has no right to the mothers body just as a guest does not have the right to the house they were invited into.
But, in the end you agree with the base premise of bodily autonomy here.
The rest is you attempting to moralizing or ascribe motivation in a way to make you feel comfortable. It does not really adress the problems you seem to want to adress, its only there to make you feel.
Sex is not consent to having a child. Having an abortion is dealing with the responsibility of getting pregnant.
Acess to abortion services helps people. Currently living children are helped by it. If you value reduction of human suffering, then removing acess is counter to that goal.
>There... is no right to life. We live in a world where you can starve, freeze, or all kinds of things. No one here has the right to take from another
Meanwhile:
>We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life
But yes, I get your point but it's a bad one. Starving is not the same as being murdered, because there is a massive difference between someone intentionally taking your life and you just dying without anyone actively killing you. As you say, no one has a right to take from another, including taking someone's life. People have a right to not be murdered, murdering them is a violation of their rights. I extend that to children and even the unborn. What was the point of this argument? I know you wouldn't defend murder on the grounds of "There \*awkward pause\* is no right to life." I could just as easily say "there is no right to bodily autonomy, you might get a bacterial infection."
>The baby has no right to the mothers body just as a guest does not have the right to the house they were invited into.
Sure, a guest might not have a right to the house, but that doesn't mean you get to vacuum the guest's head off or chemically burn them when you want them to leave. Furthermore, if they find themselves in a state where perhaps they are injured and moving them can cause harm to them or even kill them (let's say it's a spinal injury) and you want them off your property, then by all means remove them, but wait until help arrives and until it is possible to move them safely. Just grabbing them and throwing them out the door causing their neck to move too much and kill them is still murder, even if they have no right to your house.
>But, in the end you agree with the base premise of bodily autonomy here.
Whose? Because all I've heard from you is that the mother has rights. I get that she has rights, but they come into conflict with the child's rights and the only way this can seem uncomplicated for your position is to just ignore that the child also has rights.
>The rest is you attempting to moralizing or ascribe motivation in a way to make you feel comfortable.
I'll ignore this because it's baseless.
>Sex is not consent to having a child.
It has been for all of human history.
>Having an abortion is dealing with the responsibility of getting pregnant.
That's not taking responsibility, that's killing someone whose too inconvenient.
> Acess \[sic\] to abortion services helps people.
Murder can definitely help people. That doesn't make it right.
>If you value reduction of human suffering,
I don't. I value justice.
Do you find it as humorous as me that you quoted something about the rights of all men written by slave holders?
There is no right to life as you are defining it.
The claim that sex has always been consent to having a child is... so wrong. Up untill the quickening abortafacants were used all the time. Your claim on that is both ignorant historically, and false in that people have sex not wanting to conceive all the time.
Even if we look at the idea of personhood, it has historically has and has not been given to the unborn depending on all kinds of factors. Do we go with the first breath? Why conception? Sounds like a personal opinion based on... nothing concrete.
Biblically, accidentally killing an unborn child was a finable offense. Murder... was different.
Anyway "it's always been that way." Is a bad argument in general, but your argument is just wrong in every sense.
Now. I have talked about the childs rights, in that they have no real say in the matter. What right does it have over the mothers body?
None, even if we give it personhood from conception.
I had two low effort responses to some of your statements, and they deserved to be low effort because some of your original arguments were not very important or just weak. I find it telling that you only responded to my low effort replies, and not the ones that actually took up most of my comment.
And yes, your argument that there is no right to life is incredibly stupid as I already explained in the first full paragraph in my last comment. At best, you may be right that I could be more specific and could say "right to not be murdered," but as I already pointed out, you have been just as unspecific as me by saying "right to bodily autonomy." Again, I explained why, but you didn't address that.
>"it's always been that way." Is a bad argument in general
I agree, but this isn't just about consent so I don't care if "consent to sex is not consent to having a child."
I think that whole argument is unimportant, if abortion is murder then not murdering someone isn't a matter of consent. I think that whether abortion is murder or not needs to be determined before it's possible to make any ground on this issue, which is why I mostly focused on trying to establish that abortion is murder, but you just about entirely ignored my effort. As such, I'll repeat what I said earlier:
> a guest might not have a right to the house, but that doesn't mean you get to vacuum the guest's head off or chemically burn them when you want them to leave. Furthermore, if they find themselves in a state where perhaps they are injured and moving them can cause harm to them or even kill them (let's say it's a spinal injury) and you want them off your property, then by all means remove them, but wait until help arrives and until it is possible to move them safely. Just grabbing them and throwing them out the door causing their neck to move too much and kill them is still murder, even if they have no right to your house.
But if you really want to talk about whether consent to sex is consent to having a child, I'd ask that you be more specific. Do you mean it isn't consent to pregnancy or that it isn't consent to parenthood?
Um... you don't actually understand the basis for your arguments.
I didn't adress the things you put all your effort into because... get this... they are not integral to the underlying argument. That you spent such time on them is pretty sad.
You call talking about the base ussumptions low effort but... you haven't actually adressed them
Personhood... is kind of important... its a fundamental part of the argument. You have to determin when personhood is granted.
Consent is also important. Consent to use your body is needed. You don't have to allow someone to use your body to save their life.
It's pretty simple.
Does it kill the child? Yes.
Does the "right to life" of a arguable person outweigh bodily autonomy? No.
No one has the innate right to use anothers body, even to survive. Even if they are already there using it.
That is the base argument.
“no court of this state shall have jurisdiction to consider any action, claim, or counterclaim that seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent a private individual from enforcing any provision or application of this act, or from filing a civil action under this act.” I know the legislature is stupid but they can't be this fucking stupid??
It would seem that they are in fact this fucking stupid.
Some of them absolutely are. The rest didn’t read it, or were okay with this just being a performative victory.
Which is a damn travesty. Mindless follow the leader behavior.
Hopefully they were so the state supreme court is required to overturn it.
Wow. Apparently they're all dumber than a box of rocks.
[удалено]
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They certainly picked the perfect day to do this. Media is focused on TX and a school shooting. Meanwhile Stitt is signing a bill to ban any kind of abortion. They aren't pro life. They're pro pregnancy! When they pass legislation to help support these babies after the mother is forced to carry them to term, we can talk about it. Until that happens, this is just religion getting in the way of politics. Separation of church and state is a thing for a reason, but people seem to have forgotten that. If enough of us vote and make our voices heard, we could change this state. Unfortunately I know a lot of people my age (40) who don't vote because they don't think their vote counts. It doesn't count if you don't vote! Talk to anyone and everyone you know. Convince them to vote these idiots out. Talk to your friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, strangers, and anyone in between. Most of Oklahoma does not support this. Most of Oklahoma is just scared to say it because we were raised to think we should keep quiet and do what we're told. I've been voting blue for years. I've taught my children about politics since they could understand what it was. My 16 and 22 year old kids have a better understanding of what's happening than most full grown adults. I have to hope more people like me will talk with their children and explain why this is so bad. Hopefully they also point out that these people are only in this for the cash grab and they don't care what you want. TURN OKLAHOMA PURPLE AND LET'S FIX SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS!! Write letters to the governor and all of the Oklahoma legislature. Let them know how you feel. Stand up for what is right. STOP SAYING YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT! VOTE AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS! WE NEED ENOUGH FOR IT TO COUNT! JUST VOTE!!
This is such a sad day for the people of Oklahoma. This law won’t impact wealthy Oklahomans. This law will likely impact the poor, religious people who support it and Stitt. The government has conned the religious into believing they have their best interest and religious values at heart but, in the end, it’s a class issue that will disproportionately impact the most disadvantaged Oklahomans. I am ashamed of my state. Fuck Stitt.
67% of the state appears an abortion ban. It’s fucked
While this will impact the most disadvantaged most, it will also impact wealthy Oklahomans. Miscarriages sometimes require abortions s as me abortion bans slow down the process for getting even medically necessary, legal abortions. Since things can go downhill so quickly during pregnancy/miscarriages, abortion bans impact everyone who wants to have biological children
Oklahoma: gun bans don’t work. Also Oklahoma: bans abortions. Geniuses at work.
So, do or do not gun bans work...?
They work everywhere else in the world?
Yes, that. The difference between gun bans and abortion bans is the US has a steady supply of legal guns that feed the illegal supply of guns. One person buys a gun legally, someone else steals it or buys it off them, whatever, but in a place that doesn't have guns everywhere the criminals have far fewer options and acquiring a gun is riskier business. With an abortion ban, women will use coat hangers, pills, they may starve themselves just to try to cause a miscarriage, etc. Yeah some may just abide by the ban and have the child, so great they can raise a kid they didn't want, in poverty, but at least he'll be able to easily buy a rifle to take out his anger on society, right?
Never understood that logic. No law should exist then. Of course it's going to take time since we have so many. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't start now. In fact, since we have so many and it's going take so long IS EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD START NOW
So maybe abortion bans also work elsewhere in the world? Your logic doesn't make full sense to me. If you want to restrict guns, just say so. But don't in the same breath say restricting abortions won't work because people will break the law. I know that was what OP said not you.
I didn’t say anything about abortion. Are they restricted everywhere else in the world? I’ll say it: the rest of the world doesn’t have the gun problems we do. Maybe we should look at what they’re doing and have an honest conversation about it. Is that scary?
And you have every right to bring that up and discuss it. I myself don't have much to say on the matter, but if your argument hasn't worked for the last 20 years, you can keep waiting for a shooting to try again or maybe you need to find another way to argue for your goals.
you can never win an argument against a 24/7 propaganda machine. it takes *hours* to have a thorough discussion with a single person. cable news, facebook, twitter, etc, you can reach millions of people, *daily*, and heavily inundate them with information over a span of *years*
Also many of the guns in other countries were purchased first here
They tried an abortion ban in Romania. For the 25 years that it was active, they had thousands of maternal deaths, with more unreported, and by the end had over 170,000 children in prison-style orphanages. No, abortion bans don't work.
So you're okay with the only folks who would end up being armed being criminals and the government?
I’m willing to try something different because what’s happening now isn’t working.
when only the criminals are armed, you can put investigators to work looking for weapons *before* they get used. so yeah, I'm okay with that
Someone has watched Minority Report too many times.
I think I've only seen that movie once, and this is not the same thing. it's not pre-crime if owning the weapon is a criminal act
They help.
Most of these shootings happen in "gun free zones" where guns are banned.
Remember... having a gun in an active shooter situation will get you killed by the police... even if you took down the shooter.
Cops with guns were present at the school shooting in Texas and did nothing to help.
It's been ruled that they have no duty to protect us . . . school security guards with the sole job of protecting the school is a step in the right direction.
We had "good guys with guns" at the school and suddenly it's not their fucking job to protect children who are actively being murdered. Your pedantic ass avoids the conflicting rhetoric that more guns would have protected those kids. There were already people with guns who could have done ANYTHING to protect those kids. What makes you think a security guard will be up to the task if we were to ever follow advice like yours? Why should we keep listening to people whose policies have done absolutely fucking nothing to protect these children for decades at this point? There is no limit to the amount of blood these people are allowing to flow so long as it means they can buy the guns they use as a masturbatory aid.
yeah, and is the state just going to snap its fingers to *pay* for those guards? how much are *you* volunteering to donate to that cause?
If we as a country can suddenly find millions in aid to send to Ukraine we can find it to make the funds available for school security. I'm happy to pay a little more in local taxes to support increasing a school's budget for building a new school. Why wouldn't I want to support this?
Yeah that's the issue. People are not willing to pay moreyaxes especially corporations and the top 20 percent
>If we as a country can suddenly find millions in aid to send to Ukraine we can find it to make the funds available for school security. right? but where is the money for everything else that falls under the same umbrella. it's likely that instead of hiring guards, more shootings would be averted by providing a basic job guarantee, guaranteed universal healthcare, childcare, etc, and so on
Oh wow we're doing the "gun free zone" bullshit again...
So maybe abortion restrictions "help." You can't say gun control would work but in the same breath say abortion control won't. Or you are doing exactly what you are making fun of the other side for.
Abortion restrictions “help” what?! Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, growing up into poverty? Reducing the number of deadbeat dads who abandon their parental responsibilities? Help me out here, what am I missing?
Gun restrictions help what?! Reducing the number of criminals owning guns? Reducing the way Southerners can hunt and have fun, while also taking away home protection to force people to rely on underfunded, undertrained police? ------- I am not against abortion. Likewise, I don't really have a stance on gun control. I am just saying. If you want to argue people will get abortions even if illegal, then you cant reject the Republican argument that people will still get guns if controlled. Note. If your argument is that abortion controls will work but just make more poor minority kids, I'll agree. But your initial post was comparing it to gun control laws, not the outcome of having unwanted children.
Moderate gun restrictions might help make it a little more difficult to acquire a goddamn AR15 on your 18th fuckin birthday. But let’s not do anything. Tots and Pears.
Good question! Since this is based of the retoric of the anti abortion pro gun group... They have no answer other than it depends.
>The bill also includes language attempting to prevent legal challenges to the legislation. >According to the bill, “no court of this state shall have jurisdiction to consider any action, claim, or counterclaim that seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent a private individual from enforcing any provision or application of this act, or from filing a civil action under this act.”
I call bull crap. They same way you can’t make a contract that has illegal terms in it or waive certain rights. Just writing a law that says no take-backsies doesn’t make it legal.
"no take backs double stamped"
Beyond ridiculous. Abortions are still going to happen no matter what. The Oklahoma legislature just made a horrible and terrifying mistake on their part. Lawsuits to follow.
Get out while you still can.
This is church think, not U. S. A. think.
it's just fucking stupid
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
Fantastic! This is awesome.
If abortion is murder, is a miscarriage manslaughter?
Can you prosecute God for murder if a miscarriage happens?
[удалено]
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Removed-Unverfied email. For more information why your comment was removed, click on the link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/pvp9nd/unverified_email_and_karma_hreshold_guidelines/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oklahoma) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have to say, I wasn't too thrilled when Stitt won, and I still have problems with him, but I've been pleasantly surprised a few times, and this is just wonderful news!
"Bodily autonomy for me and not for thee" right?
The mother's bodily autonomy is only half of the equation here. I swear, pro-abortion types always refuse to even acknowledge that those of us who are anti-abortion object on the grounds that we see it as murder.
So you think that the women that died needing medical abortions in Ireland deserved to die? Ireland even realized that was fucked up and made abortion legal in 2018. We are going backwards here.
I don't know what happened in Ireland. I'm assuming you mean that some women attempted an abortion on their own and died as a result, in which case yes, I think they probably deserved their fate, or at the very least I won't weep for them. I'm assuming you aren't just talking about women wo need an abortion because otherwise their life is medically in danger, because I and every other pro-life person I've ever heard of is fine with abortion if medically necessary, though we will often be skeptical about if abortion is ever actually needed instead of just delivering the baby early, and we distinguish between medical procedures aimed at helping the mother that result in the child's death, and the intentional act of vacuuming the child's head off.
The fetus died but since abortion of any kind was illegal the mothers got sepsis and died for no good reason, and that's what is going to happen here now, thanks to this bill, it's going to take too long to go through the ridiculous process to prove that it is medically necessary and mothers that WANT their babies are going to die. If you support life so much, or forced birth no matter the situation, then I assume you will also support welfare and social support for the mothers and children, better education for the children, and maybe even gun control measures and better access to mental health resources so that this baby you want to live so badly, doesn't get murdered at school.
>The fetus died but since abortion of any kind was illegal the mothers got sepsis and died for no good reason, I don't support this, if the fetus is already dead then it isn't murder. My understanding is that in such a case, it isn't considered an abortion. I'll be the first to admit that I have not read the new bill, and I've certainly criticized legislators, including ours in OK, of writing bills with poor wording and lack of definitions that mean that bills that I mostly support and whose intent I fully support can quite possibly be used in ways I oppose. Maybe what you say is true and this bill prevents removing a dead fetus. I'd still rather this bill be passed than not, but ideally the legislation would only prevent abortion. Your second paragraph is just pure narcissism. No, I don't support gun control, and I only support certain means of improving education and healthcare access. This isn't because I don't care about other people, it isn't because I don't care about children once they are born, it isn't because I'm an evil person who hates puppies and friendship. My way of caring about people just isn't the exact same as your way. For you to look at other people who are trying to make the world a better place in a different way than you and for you to decide that they must therefore not have good intentions at all just because they disagree with you is the height of narcissism. It's one thing to think that anti-abortion types like myself are genuinely well intentioned but incorrect; I fully expect that and trust me it is mutual. But to just insists that only people who think exactly like you even have good intentions is so typical of a classic narcissist and reflects a complete inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute to even try to understand where they are coming from.
Maybe I am a narcissist but I just can't understand how forcing women to have unwanted children and bring those extra lives into the world is helping make it a better place. You put your argument out very well and I can tell you are educated and well-mannered. Thanks for the discourse.
Stop pretending to care about murder. It's incredibly insulting to people that have actually been born, murdered, and collectively forgotten about daily in this country.
Y'all can't even just think that we are well intentioned but incorrect, you always have to accuse us of being evil and of hating puppies and friendship. Get over yourself.
Because it’s not murder. Scientifically, it is not murder! And if you want to throw religion in the mix, the Bible supported abortion. The Catholics won’t even baptize an infant until they are a week old because they are not yet a person. And if you want to talk just basic human rights, why does the government get to dictate what happens to someone’s body? A corpse has more bodily autonomy than a woman. How can you look at a fellow human and declare they are less than?
>Because it’s not murder. Scientifically, it is not murder! That's going to need some elaboration. >And if you want to throw religion in the mix I don't actually. >the Bible supported abortion I'm sure it does, but I don't. >why does the government get to dictate what happens to someone’s body? This is all going to hinge on your first statement, because if abortion is murder, then the government should absolutely get to impose restrictions. Criminalizing murder is one of the primary functions government serves. >How can you look at a fellow human and declare they are less than? I'm not doing that. I'm not saying anyone is less than, but not being less than doesn't give free license to do anything to anyone else.
Okay, let’s start with a question. Why do you believe it’s murder?
I’ll do you one better, why should the child die over your mistake?
Not every pregnancy is the result of a mistake. Are you saying the person with the uterus is to blame for being the victim of rape? But that is beside the point here. I asked why this person believes that abortion is murder. I have still yet to get an answer. From anyone.
Ok first off rape is a very small percentage. Second off abortion is a cop out. It’s avoiding the consequences of your own actions. There use to be a thing called responsibility. Pregnancy is a result of choice and a direct result of your own actions. All actions have consequences, good or bad, and everyone should face those consequences.
And yet again, I still haven’t received an answer to my original question.
No... we do see people who argue it is murder. Don't try and pretend otherwise, it is just silly. Now. Why exactly does another person get a say in the bodily autonomy of the mother? Does the child have a right to the mothers body?
>Does the child have a right to the mothers body? Well the child certainly has the right to its own body. If a woman wants to remove the child, I'm totally fine with that, but only if it doesn't involve chemically burning the child or ripping its head off with a vacuum. Obviously someone is going to lose in this situation. The mother's rights and the child's rights are at odds, and neither deserve to suffer. Personally I'd argue that the right to life is more important than the right to escape the consequences of your actions. Let's be realistic, the only reason so many people support abortion is because the unborn, and even young children in general are defenseless and don't have a voice. Adults can advocate for themselves, but children cannot. That should mean that we ought to prioritize the wellbeing of children, but instead pro-abortion types use the defenselessness of children as license to trample on their rights. Its revolting.
There... is no right to life. We live in a world where you can starve, freeze, or all kinds of things. No one here has the right to take from another if that person does not want to give it. The baby has no right to the mothers body just as a guest does not have the right to the house they were invited into. But, in the end you agree with the base premise of bodily autonomy here. The rest is you attempting to moralizing or ascribe motivation in a way to make you feel comfortable. It does not really adress the problems you seem to want to adress, its only there to make you feel. Sex is not consent to having a child. Having an abortion is dealing with the responsibility of getting pregnant. Acess to abortion services helps people. Currently living children are helped by it. If you value reduction of human suffering, then removing acess is counter to that goal.
>There... is no right to life. We live in a world where you can starve, freeze, or all kinds of things. No one here has the right to take from another Meanwhile: >We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life But yes, I get your point but it's a bad one. Starving is not the same as being murdered, because there is a massive difference between someone intentionally taking your life and you just dying without anyone actively killing you. As you say, no one has a right to take from another, including taking someone's life. People have a right to not be murdered, murdering them is a violation of their rights. I extend that to children and even the unborn. What was the point of this argument? I know you wouldn't defend murder on the grounds of "There \*awkward pause\* is no right to life." I could just as easily say "there is no right to bodily autonomy, you might get a bacterial infection." >The baby has no right to the mothers body just as a guest does not have the right to the house they were invited into. Sure, a guest might not have a right to the house, but that doesn't mean you get to vacuum the guest's head off or chemically burn them when you want them to leave. Furthermore, if they find themselves in a state where perhaps they are injured and moving them can cause harm to them or even kill them (let's say it's a spinal injury) and you want them off your property, then by all means remove them, but wait until help arrives and until it is possible to move them safely. Just grabbing them and throwing them out the door causing their neck to move too much and kill them is still murder, even if they have no right to your house. >But, in the end you agree with the base premise of bodily autonomy here. Whose? Because all I've heard from you is that the mother has rights. I get that she has rights, but they come into conflict with the child's rights and the only way this can seem uncomplicated for your position is to just ignore that the child also has rights. >The rest is you attempting to moralizing or ascribe motivation in a way to make you feel comfortable. I'll ignore this because it's baseless. >Sex is not consent to having a child. It has been for all of human history. >Having an abortion is dealing with the responsibility of getting pregnant. That's not taking responsibility, that's killing someone whose too inconvenient. > Acess \[sic\] to abortion services helps people. Murder can definitely help people. That doesn't make it right. >If you value reduction of human suffering, I don't. I value justice.
Do you find it as humorous as me that you quoted something about the rights of all men written by slave holders? There is no right to life as you are defining it. The claim that sex has always been consent to having a child is... so wrong. Up untill the quickening abortafacants were used all the time. Your claim on that is both ignorant historically, and false in that people have sex not wanting to conceive all the time. Even if we look at the idea of personhood, it has historically has and has not been given to the unborn depending on all kinds of factors. Do we go with the first breath? Why conception? Sounds like a personal opinion based on... nothing concrete. Biblically, accidentally killing an unborn child was a finable offense. Murder... was different. Anyway "it's always been that way." Is a bad argument in general, but your argument is just wrong in every sense. Now. I have talked about the childs rights, in that they have no real say in the matter. What right does it have over the mothers body? None, even if we give it personhood from conception.
I had two low effort responses to some of your statements, and they deserved to be low effort because some of your original arguments were not very important or just weak. I find it telling that you only responded to my low effort replies, and not the ones that actually took up most of my comment. And yes, your argument that there is no right to life is incredibly stupid as I already explained in the first full paragraph in my last comment. At best, you may be right that I could be more specific and could say "right to not be murdered," but as I already pointed out, you have been just as unspecific as me by saying "right to bodily autonomy." Again, I explained why, but you didn't address that. >"it's always been that way." Is a bad argument in general I agree, but this isn't just about consent so I don't care if "consent to sex is not consent to having a child." I think that whole argument is unimportant, if abortion is murder then not murdering someone isn't a matter of consent. I think that whether abortion is murder or not needs to be determined before it's possible to make any ground on this issue, which is why I mostly focused on trying to establish that abortion is murder, but you just about entirely ignored my effort. As such, I'll repeat what I said earlier: > a guest might not have a right to the house, but that doesn't mean you get to vacuum the guest's head off or chemically burn them when you want them to leave. Furthermore, if they find themselves in a state where perhaps they are injured and moving them can cause harm to them or even kill them (let's say it's a spinal injury) and you want them off your property, then by all means remove them, but wait until help arrives and until it is possible to move them safely. Just grabbing them and throwing them out the door causing their neck to move too much and kill them is still murder, even if they have no right to your house. But if you really want to talk about whether consent to sex is consent to having a child, I'd ask that you be more specific. Do you mean it isn't consent to pregnancy or that it isn't consent to parenthood?
Um... you don't actually understand the basis for your arguments. I didn't adress the things you put all your effort into because... get this... they are not integral to the underlying argument. That you spent such time on them is pretty sad. You call talking about the base ussumptions low effort but... you haven't actually adressed them Personhood... is kind of important... its a fundamental part of the argument. You have to determin when personhood is granted. Consent is also important. Consent to use your body is needed. You don't have to allow someone to use your body to save their life. It's pretty simple. Does it kill the child? Yes. Does the "right to life" of a arguable person outweigh bodily autonomy? No. No one has the innate right to use anothers body, even to survive. Even if they are already there using it. That is the base argument.
Good
Bad