• 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!

Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law

snbl11225 said:
My understanding is that the doctors DON"T have to tell the mother/parents that there unborn child has medical problems and cannot be sued for with holding the information. That to me is wrong. In fact, it is the part of the law that is most worrisome to me. I do not have a problem with the ultrasound if it is handled appropriately and not use as information and not as a battering weapon against the mother. When it sanity going to reamerge among our law making bodies and our citizenry.
Click to expand...

It'll return when religion is banned from government office.
 
This law seems to fit the conservative profile and I'm glad it's been at least stalled.

 
texmaster said:
Spare us your phony indignation. Most Liberals LOVE big government. They just oppose it when its something they don't agree with.
Click to expand...
His point was that Republicans are exactly the same. Conservatives LOVE big government. They just oppose it when it is something they don't agree with.

The only differences between Liberals and Conservatives are what they want government to do, what they want government to stay out of, and the fact that Conservatives hypocritically CLAIM to be for small government.
 
jamesrage said:
I am pretty sure Television and beer drinking hats would fall under the first amendment under free speech. Popsicles on the other hand could probably be banned seeing how some areas ban certain foods and certain food ingredients.
Click to expand...

Then are you going by which things are named specifically or which things fall under general categories in the constitution?
 
I am completely against this court ruling, the law should have passed with no worries. Shame on that judge. Why not have an ultrasound procedure first? It would show a woman that her "clump of cells" if a living person and has a right to life. Abortion just needs to be completely outlawed already, there is no "woman's" right to murder a child in her womb. What about the right of the unborn child?
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I am completely against this court ruling,
Click to expand...

It wasn't even a ruling. It was a purely procedural, temporary order. Jeez, people.
 
jamesrage said:
It basically means that certain listed (edenumerate) rights shall not be used to deny rights retained by the people.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And...

Think it through.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I am pretty sure Television and beer drinking hats would fall under the first amendment under free speech. Popsicles on the other hand could probably be banned seeing how some areas ban certain foods and certain food ingredients.
Click to expand...

Beer drinking hats is free speech?

What a liberal judicial activist you are today.
 
misterman said:
It wasn't even a ruling. It was a purely procedural, temporary order. Jeez, people.
Click to expand...

It was done in the name of ideology though. The court has decided to try and legislate and prevent a completely legal legislation from passing because it may change a woman's mind before she has an abortion. What about health reasons? Shouldn't the abortion "doctor" know the insides via ultrasound before he preforms his execution? One can argue that there are health reasons for allowing this and forcing it.
 
digsby: "It would show a woman that her "clump of cells" if a living person and has a right to life. Abortion just needs to be completely outlawed already, there is no "woman's" right to murder a child in her womb. What about the right of the unborn child?"

I agree with you digsby .. I find it interesting how these "so-smarties" who laud science and reason all of a sudden drop all of that and leap with all fours into their religious philosophy when examining the scientific / medical evidence/s that prove life in the womb .. very telling indeed

since we have accepted the technology of the atom ..
and have rejected the sermon on the mount ..
we therefore have a society full of nuclear giants and ethical infants
 
digsbe said:
It was done in the name of ideology though.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, and you have absolutely zero evidence that it was.

The court has decided to try and legislate and prevent a completely legal legislation from passing because it may change a woman's mind before she has an abortion.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't.

What about health reasons? Shouldn't the abortion "doctor" know the insides via ultrasound before he preforms his execution? One can argue that there are health reasons for allowing this and forcing it.
Click to expand...

And one will now have time to argue that - in her court - now that she's made time for the arguments.
 
misterman said:
No it wasn't, and you have absolutely zero evidence that it was.
Click to expand...
Yes it was, you have absolutely zero evidence that it wasn't. My opinion is that she legislated from the bench according to her ideology. I bet there is a 99% chance that she is a pro-choice woman.
No it hasn't.
Click to expand...
Yes it has (again, your word verses mine)

And one will now have time to argue that - in her court - now that she's made time for the arguments.
Click to expand...
She has tried to delay the legislative process. She may allow for arguments but I doubt she will be objective and actually let this completely legal law pass.
 
The eyes begin to develop early in the fourth week after conception.
During this extremely critical week the esophagus, gallbladder, liver, lungs, pancreas, pharynx, stomach, and trachea also begin to form.
And, toward the end of the week, the nose, tongue, and spleen also start to develop.​

At the average time when a woman is aware that she is pregnant
(the fifth to sixth week after conception),
the preborn human being living inside her is metabolizing nutrition, excreting waste, moving, sucking his or her thumb, growing, and doing many other things that non-living things just do not do.
As early as 21 days after conception, the baby’s heart has begun to beat his or her own unique blood-type, often different than the mother’s.

(Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310;
Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles,
From Conception to Birth, p.217.)
At 40 days after conception, brain waves can be read on an EEG, or an electroencephalogram.
(Dr. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, JAMA, Oct.12, 1964, p.113.)​
 
digsbe said:
Yes it was, you have absolutely zero evidence that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy.

Now, if you have evidence to back up your claim, present it, or withdraw your claim.

My opinion is that she legislated from the bench according to her ideology. I bet there is a 99% chance that she is a pro-choice woman.
Click to expand...

That's your evidence? That it's your opinion, and you think there's a 99% chance?

Just admit it - you're guessing, wildly.

Yes it has (again, your word verses mine)
Click to expand...

No, not your word vs. mine. She hasn't. She hasn't ruled on anything regarding the merits of the case. All she did was make time for a hearing. Seriously, get real.

She has tried to delay the legislative process. She may allow for arguments but I doubt she will be objective and actually let this completely legal law pass.
Click to expand...

You "doubt?"

Hey, great. Doubt all you want. Don't pretend like you have a shred of evidence for anything.
 
Blood vessels start to form very early, about 13-18 days after fertilization. Then, on about the 20th day - nearly the end of the third week - the foundation of the brain, the spinal cord, and the entire nervous system is established.​

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.
 
Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not.

Genetically,
a new human being comes into existence
from the earliest moment of conception.​
 
Gurich said her most significant personal accomplishment is her work in the Russian mission field of the United Methodist Church where she has assisted in medical missions, helped with Bible school for children, participated in Bible studies and worship services and given financial and spiritual support.
Click to expand...

Woman of the Year profile: Noma D. Gurich, J.D., Oklahoma County | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET

Yeah, she's gotta be pro-choice, just because she's a woman.

Oh, and she's an elected judge too.
 
misterman said:
Logical fallacy.

Now, if you have evidence to back up your claim, present it, or withdraw your claim.
Click to expand...
My evidence is that her ruling was not just and logical. I present my claim that she is legislating from the bench and using a cop out excuse to try and prevent the passage of the bill. Show me the evidence that shows she is genuinely thinking rationally and not legislating from the bench.

That's your evidence? That it's your opinion, and you think there's a 99% chance?

Just admit it - you're guessing, wildly.
Click to expand...
I am guessing, it's called being sarchastic with numbers to make a point ;) I wasn't making any kind of factual claim behind my number. My point is that she is most likely a pro-choice woman who wants to stall pro-life legislation.

No, not your word vs. mine. She hasn't. She hasn't ruled on anything regarding the merits of the case. All she did was make time for a hearing. Seriously, get real.
Click to expand...
She made time for a hearing because she wants to stall this. Her reason for stalling is not logical or sound.

You "doubt?"

Hey, great. Doubt all you want. Don't pretend like you have a shred of evidence for anything.
Click to expand...
And you can do the same. You can't prove that she isn't legislating from the bench. Odds are that she is trying to prevent popular legislation from passing because she disagrees with it. Similar to the GOP threatening to bring lawsuits against Obama's passed healthcare bill. They use the legal process to try and overturn/stall legislation they don't agree with. This is my opinion, reject it or believe it. Personally I think this judge's reasons are absurd and I do believe she is just trying to stall and provide an opposition to this bill.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law - UPI.com

Once again, the party of "small government" :roll: , the Repubs, continues its efforts to give gov't more and more intrusive powers, this time allowing them to stick their arrogant noses into women's health rights.
Click to expand...

Look, so far, this is all being done within the State of Oklahoma. However this all turns out, I have no problem with it, because the outcome will be a state decision. However, if the Federal government gets involved, one way or the other, then I do have a problem with it.

So far, this is Oklahoma's decision, and I don't see intrusive Federal government at work here, but the majority of Oklahomans involved, since their judges are directly elected, as it should be. Call them arrogant if you want, but it is their decision, and not your business, nor my business, nor the business of the Federal government.
 
digsbe said:
My evidence is that her ruling was not just and logical.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a ruling, dude. It was a temporary order to facilitate a ruling.

The ****ing Attorney General for the state - whose job it is to defend the law - AGREED with it!

Stop embarassing yourself.

I present my claim that she is legislating from the bench and using a cop out excuse to try and prevent the passage of the bill. Show me the evidence that shows she is genuinely thinking rationally and not legislating from the bench.
Click to expand...

Jesus, stop with the lame fallacies.

I am guessing, it's called being sarchastic with numbers to make a point ;) I wasn't making any kind of factual claim behind my number. My point is that she is most likely a pro-choice woman who wants to stall pro-life legislation.
Click to expand...

You're pulling stuff out of your ass is what you're doing.
 
misterman said:
It wasn't a ruling, dude. It was a temporary order to facilitate a ruling.

The ****ing Attorney General for the state - whose job it is to defend the law - AGREED with it!

Stop embarassing yourself.
Click to expand...
Well I disagree with both of them then. I know it wasn't a ruling, she chose to stall the legislation to hear arguments.

Jesus, stop with the lame fallacies.
Click to expand...
What lame fallacies?

You're pulling stuff out of your ass is what you're doing.
Click to expand...
I am presenting my opinion just like you are. I believe this is a sad attempt to stall and prevent pro-life legislation from passing because a pro-choice judge deems it necessary to have a hearing on it.
 
digsbe said:
Well I disagree with both of them then. I know it wasn't a ruling, she chose to stall the legislation to hear arguments.
Click to expand...

All parties agreed to this rulling, including the state Attorney General, who is defending the law.

Is he stalling too?

What lame fallacies?
Click to expand...

Where you keep demanding evidence that your claims are wrong instead of providing evidence that they are right.

I am presenting my opinion just like you are. I believe this is a sad attempt to stall and prevent pro-life legislation from passing because a pro-choice judge deems it necessary to have a hearing on it.
Click to expand...

Hey, great, but your opinion is completely unsupported by the evidence.
 
digsbe said:
I am completely against this court ruling, the law should have passed with no worries. Shame on that judge. Why not have an ultrasound procedure first? It would show a woman that her "clump of cells" if a living person and has a right to life. Abortion just needs to be completely outlawed already, there is no "woman's" right to murder a child in her womb. What about the right of the unborn child?
Click to expand...
Umm... no, it shows no such thing by any stretch of the imagination.

digsbe said:
It was done in the name of ideology though. The court has decided to try and legislate and prevent a completely legal legislation from passing because it may change a woman's mind before she has an abortion.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.That's not why it was stalled and why it should be prevented from passing. It has nothing at all to do with "changing a woman's mind". It has to do with the government forcing a person to undergo a medical procedure.

What about health reasons? Shouldn't the abortion "doctor" know the insides via ultrasound before he preforms his execution? One can argue that there are health reasons for allowing this and forcing it.
Click to expand...
If the doctor wants to do an ultrasound, nothing is stopping them. If they need to, nothing is stopping them. If the woman wants one, nothing is stopping them.

By stopping this law, the only entity whose rights are being restricted is the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom