• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Anti-abortion bill becomes law in Oklahoma

DeeJayH

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Anti-abortion bill becomes law in Oklahoma | U.S. | Reuters

A bill prohibiting public funds from being used for most abortions has become law in Oklahoma after a deadline passed for the state's governor to veto the measure.
"If the governor doesn't act, it becomes law," said his spokesman, Phil Bacharach. Gov. Brad Henry had until midnight on Wednesday night to veto the bill.
Henry, a Democrat, vetoed a previous bill that contained no exceptions for publicly funded abortions even in cases of rape or incest. The new version allows such an exception if the victim reports the crime to the police.
It easily passed the Republican-controlled House and got through the evenly divided state Senate with several votes from Democratic lawmakers.
Its passage is a victory for social conservatives who have been pressing nationwide for restrictions on abortions. Such moves are generally challenged in court by groups that support a woman's right to choice on the matter.
"Virtually every hospital in the state of Oklahoma will no longer be allowed to do it. If you live in rural Oklahoma, your hospital probably receives state funding," said Linda Gray Murphy, a lobbyist with the National Association of Social Workers, who worked to the defeat the legislation.
Click to expand...

eggselent *rubs hands together*
1 major decision, flawed IMO, being slowly chipped away
so legal eagles, will this stand up upon legal challenge in court?
 
Many states do not allow public funds to pay for abortions. Texas is amoung them. It is great to see other states on board. :)

So yes, it will definatly stand in court.
 
Now if they would only pass a law (or enforce existing laws) that makes the fathers of these kids pay their share instead of just :2party: and :bolt :bolt leaving the woman and the tax payers to support their one night stands!!!
 
Sergeant Stinger1 said:
Now if they would only pass a law (or enforce existing laws) that makes the fathers of these kids pay their share instead of just :2party: and :bolt :bolt leaving the woman and the tax payers to support their one night stands!!!
Click to expand...

It is not easy to be a dead beat dad and pay zero child support. You make it sound as if it's a walk in the park and the law turns the other way. That's ridiculous.

Most men end up paying their support. Most who don't do so voluntarily eventually end up getting it taken right out of their pay check. The ones who get away without paying forever are either spending their life working under the table, left the country, or are in jail.

On top of that there are plenty of men out there paying for kids that turned out not to even be theirs. Sometimes the judge insists they keep on paying. :shock: The punishment for a woman knowingly deceiving a guy into thinking a kid is his? Nada, Zip, Zippo.
 
Yes, I think it will stand up in court. Denying public funds to pay for abortions isn't the same thing as banning abortion, IMO.
 
I only hope they continue with their anti-socialist line of thought and disallow the state from paying for any medical procedures.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes, I think it will stand up in court. Denying public funds to pay for abortions isn't the same thing as banning abortion, IMO.
Click to expand...
There are so many people, as you know, that will argue that the state not providing the means for someone to exercise a right is the same as denying someone that right -- after all, how can you argue you have a right if you don't have the means actually exercise it?

Note that these people NEVER extend this argument to guns.
 
Sergeant Stinger1 said:
Now if they would only pass a law (or enforce existing laws) that makes the fathers of these kids pay their share instead of just :2party: and :bolt :bolt leaving the woman and the tax payers to support their one night stands!!!
Click to expand...
My father had an employee, manager of a restaurant, who bailed on his family. the guy left Vermont and went to Florida. He was arrested and extradited to Vt in just a few weeks.

also, why should all men pay child support. if it is an unwanted child, he should not have to pay for it. He can give her 1/2 the money an abortion would have cost, and be done with it. Fathers should have rights too. Freeing the woman to make a choice should not mean a man should be enslaved for her choice
 
DeeJayH said:
Fathers should have rights too. Freeing the woman to make a choice should not mean a man should be enslaved for her choice
Click to expand...
Certainly.
If women have the choice to free themselves from having to suffer the consequences of intercourse, then so too should men.
 
talloulou said:
It is not easy to be a dead beat dad and pay zero child support. You make it sound as if it's a walk in the park and the law turns the other way. That's ridiculous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seems like you have a lot to learn about the dead beat dads.
Let me tell you about them,
First off the first thing many guys say to a girl that he got pregnant is, don't say that I am the father. Then you can get on welfare, we can live together and I will get a job to help out! OH YA!!! Maybe the guy will stick around for a while but he will :bolt the first time the girl asks him for some money.
Now who is going to go after him when he :bolt ? No one, because the girl doesn't want to get in trouble saying that she lied about not knowing who the father was.
The dead beat dads you are refering to are the ones that have their names put on the birth cirtificate or were married to a woman. Yes, they will go after them but you have to realise that most dead beat dads are nameless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most men end up paying their support. Most who don't do so voluntarily eventually end up getting it taken right out of their pay check. The ones who get away without paying forever are either spending their life working under the table, left the country, or are in jail.
~~~~~~~~~
BONG WRONG AGAIN! Read my first post!
I can't tell you how many girls are on welfare with the guy working. I mean they are living better together than many working couples are. I had some of these guys working for me for a paycheck not cash under the table.
The guy has the new car under his name and lives with the girl in subsidised housing. Its a common thing around here. Rent free, heat bill free, town tax free, electrict bill free, water bill free, maintenence free, food bill free etc.
~~~~~~~~~

On top of that there are plenty of men out there paying for kids that turned out not to even be theirs. Sometimes the judge insists they keep on paying. :shock: The punishment for a woman knowingly deceiving a guy into thinking a kid is his? Nada, Zip, Zippo.
Click to expand...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You seem to just want to get on the mothers case.
Now in these >>>RARE<<< cases did the MEN ask for a DNA test??? NO!!!
PUNISH the woman because she didn't know who the father was??? Punish the guy because he is to dumb to know that the woman had sex with other men or because he is to dumb to ask for a DNA sample.
 
M14 Shooter said:
There are so many people, as you know, that will argue that the state not providing the means for someone to exercise a right is the same as denying someone that right -- after all, how can you argue you have a right if you don't have the means actually exercise it?

Note that these people NEVER extend this argument to guns.
Click to expand...
I find that hypocritical of the abortionist who want to use my money to fund abortions and the right to bear arms is actually a real right.
 
M14 Shooter said:
There are so many people, as you know, that will argue that the state not providing the means for someone to exercise a right is the same as denying someone that right -- after all, how can you argue you have a right if you don't have the means actually exercise it?

Note that these people NEVER extend this argument to guns.
Click to expand...

When are they going to advocate the government pay for a newspaper so that EVERYONE can exercise their right to freedom of the press? Oh well.
 
DeeJayH said:
also, why should all men pay child support. if it is an unwanted child, he should not have to pay for it. He can give her 1/2 the money an abortion would have cost, and be done with it. Fathers should have rights too. Freeing the woman to make a choice should not mean a man should be enslaved for her choice
Click to expand...

Abortions should NOT be allowed and BOTH should bear the burden (and share the joys) of raising the child. Unfortunately, society today has a warped view of life and of children.
 
ludahai said:
Abortions should NOT be allowed and BOTH should bear the burden (and share the joys) of raising the child. Unfortunately, society today has a warped view of life and of children.
Click to expand...
I concur.....
 
rivrrat said:
I only hope they continue with their anti-socialist line of thought and disallow the state from paying for any medical procedures.
Click to expand...
Great idea! Let's screw the 50 million Americans who cannot afford health care! Hey maybe they'll all get sick and die!

"anti-socialist" as written by you means "screw the poor, screw the needy, screw the Americans who cannot afford to take care of themselves, IMHO.

Is there anything crueler than deny Americans health care when they need it?
 
ludahai said:
Abortions should NOT be allowed and BOTH should bear the burden (and share the joys) of raising the child. Unfortunately, society today has a warped view of life and of children.
Click to expand...
Happily for America the freedom to choose will always be a right women enjoy. Abortion will always be legal in the USA, thank God!
 
ludahai said:
Abortions should NOT be allowed and BOTH should bear the burden (and share the joys) of raising the child. Unfortunately, society today has a warped view of life and of children.
Click to expand...

Care to extrapolate on why you feel this way? Care to give us some facts to back up your opining? Until then, this post means nothing except that your PERSONAL CHOICE is to not have abortions and for that, I say "Hooray for you".

As to the rest of the thread: I am undecided how I feel about denying medical procedures based on moral disapproval. I am still developing my stance on this particular issue.
 
:spin:
26 X World Champs said:
Great idea! Let's screw the 50 million Americans who cannot afford health care! Hey maybe they'll all get sick and die!

"anti-socialist" as written by you means "screw the poor, screw the needy, screw the Americans who cannot afford to take care of themselves, IMHO.

Is there anything crueler than deny Americans health care when they need it?
Click to expand...

Oh here we go again with the hysterics. No, rejection of socialism in any form is a nod of approval to innovation, competition, free market, and the American drive to constantly break new ground.

Socialized health care as written by you means "screw the people who have made use of our free market and secured themselves by legal and admirable means and just take it from them to suit my needs". In other words, you want to steal from those who have secured good health care just to make everyone's health care $hitty. That is a warped sense of equality you have there, sport.

Screw that, I won't accept it and I will not accept your hysterical vilification of those who work hard and utilize the capitalist system we work under. If you can't play ball, then sit on the bench and don't expect a trophy for it.
 
jallman said:
Screw that, I won't accept it and I will not accept your hysterical vilification of those who work hard and utilize the capitalist system we work under. If you can't play ball, then sit on the bench and don't expect a trophy for it.
Click to expand...
I must say that you've proven my point, exactly, thank you. Democrats as a rule care about providing at least a minimum of services so that no one goes without....we look at it as a noble cause. Caring for those who have not is what I believe America is all about.

On the other hand we have Republicans, most of whom (IMHO) are just like you and don't give a rat's a$s about Americans in need and actually are so selfish that they believe (and in your instance) write that "you work hard for your money" and you don't want to share it...well boo hoo...:2bigcry:

I find it morally bankrupt for anyone to care only about themselves and not their fellow Americans. It's a nasty, ugly undesirable character flaw IMHO.

It's also ironic that so many (Republicans) of these same whiners (about having to share a little of what they have with those who have less) also
dare to say that one of the main reasons they support Bush and the Iraq War was to liberate Iraq from a terrible dictator. Yeah right!

greed (grēd)
n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
 
26 X World Champs said:
I must say that you've proven my point, exactly, thank you. Democrats as a rule care about providing at least a minimum of services so that no one goes without....we look at it as a noble cause. Caring for those who have not is what I believe America is all about.

On the other hand we have Republicans, most of whom (IMHO) are just like you and don't give a rat's a$s about Americans in need and actually are so selfish that they believe (and in your instance) write that "you work hard for your money" and you don't want to share it...well boo hoo...:2bigcry:

I find it morally bankrupt for anyone to care only about themselves and not their fellow Americans. It's a nasty, ugly undesirable character flaw IMHO.

It's also ironic that so many (Republicans) of these same whiners (about having to share a little of what they have with those who have less) also
dare to say that one of the main reasons they support Bush and the Iraq War was to liberate Iraq from a terrible dictator. Yeah right!

greed (grēd)
n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
Click to expand...

So then basically, you admit that you are advocating theft from hard-working Americans who look after themselve? Is that what you are saying? That you want the government to get a bit bigger and steal the fruits of hardworking Americans labor to satisfy your twisted and demented sense of equality?
 
jallman said:
In other words, you want to steal from those who have secured good health care just to make everyone's health care $hitty. That is a warped sense of equality you have there, sport.
Click to expand...

You might have a point if our health care system was the best in the world. But it's not. Nowhere close. Obviously the other modern countries with universal health care are doing SOMETHING right, since they spend far less money per capita than we do, and still have better health care.
 
Kandahar said:
You might have a point if our health care system was the best in the world. But it's not. Nowhere close. Obviously the other modern countries with universal health care are doing SOMETHING right, since they spend far less money per capita than we do, and still have better health care.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't conveniently be glossing over the problems with their health care systems would you?
 
26 X World Champs said:
I must say that you've proven my point, exactly, thank you. Democrats as a rule care about providing at least a minimum of services so that no one goes without....we look at it as a noble cause. Caring for those who have not is what I believe America is all about.

On the other hand we have Republicans, most of whom (IMHO) are just like you and don't give a rat's a$s about Americans in need and actually are so selfish that they believe (and in your instance) write that "you work hard for your money" and you don't want to share it...well boo hoo...:2bigcry:

I find it morally bankrupt for anyone to care only about themselves and not their fellow Americans. It's a nasty, ugly undesirable character flaw IMHO.

It's also ironic that so many (Republicans) of these same whiners (about having to share a little of what they have with those who have less) also
dare to say that one of the main reasons they support Bush and the Iraq War was to liberate Iraq from a terrible dictator. Yeah right!

greed (grēd)
n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
Click to expand...
i care about those that through no fault of their own fall on hard times
I could not care less about f'tards who repeatedly put themselves on teh govt teet or those who make a career out of working the system

******* away money on those types is unAmerican
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom