Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

[Conservative65]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Wonderful news! Don't want a baby don't get pregnant. SIMPLE!

If only it was that easy, my little Hitler Youth.

Tell us, should darkie babies their parents can't afford be left to die in the snow?

Yours should have let you die in the snow.

 

[Conservative65]

I understand that if someone makes a choice it's their place to fund that choice. My problem isn't with poor people having kids or using birth control. It's with poor people demanding that their choices should be funded by someone else's money. It's not my responsibility to fund a personal choice someone else makes unless they're willing for those doing the funding to tell them what they can and cannot do.

And in the real world people make mistakes. And they are less likely to do that with free birth control. I'd rather give birth control than bitch about abortions or people having too many children.

Their mistakes are not my responsibility.

You keep calling it free yet you say taxpayer funded. For those of us paying the taxes, we call bullshit on your free claim.

Then feel free to give it. Just do it with your money. As far as the too many children, there is no such thing as long as the one that is having them provide for them without demanding someone else be forced to do it.

Here's a good example:


This mother of 15 says someone needs to be help accountable and pay for her children. From what I understand, she has three baby daddies. While I don't know who they are, I do know they are the ones that are responsible. I also know that since none of them are mine, I'm not.

Sounds like a great candidate for birth control.

Yes taxes pay for it and it's cheaper than 15 kids.

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And we are all better off if those mistakes can be avoided. So give out birth control.

Far too rational for ConJob who wants it both ways. In his world that works apparently, just not in the real one.

Both way? Can't be since there is an option currently when a woman gets pregnant. If she has a kid she can't afford, it isn't because she didn't have another choice.

You don't want her to get an abortion, which you don't want to pay for, and you don't want her to have a kid, that you'd have to pay for. You want it both ways and still can't tell me why I should pay for the damn schools?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Because the "personal business" you're talking about involves the calculated killing of other people (innocent people).

A zygote after conception is not a person.

And you know this because.....

How do you not know it?

 

[Brain357]

And in the real world people make mistakes. And they are less likely to do that with free birth control. I'd rather give birth control than bitch about abortions or people having too many children.

Their mistakes are not my responsibility.

You keep calling it free yet you say taxpayer funded. For those of us paying the taxes, we call bullshit on your free claim.

Then feel free to give it. Just do it with your money. As far as the too many children, there is no such thing as long as the one that is having them provide for them without demanding someone else be forced to do it.

Here's a good example:


This mother of 15 says someone needs to be help accountable and pay for her children. From what I understand, she has three baby daddies. While I don't know who they are, I do know they are the ones that are responsible. I also know that since none of them are mine, I'm not.

Sounds like a great candidate for birth control.

Yes taxes pay for it and it's cheaper than 15 kids.

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Wonderful news! Don't want a baby don't get pregnant. SIMPLE!

If only it was that easy, my little Hitler Youth.

Tell us, should darkie babies their parents can't afford be left to die in the snow?

Yours should have let you die in the snow.

Ah, the Pro-lifers at work. Pro-life, as long as they care otherwise fuck 'em.

 

[Conservative65]

Their mistakes are not my responsibility.

You keep calling it free yet you say taxpayer funded. For those of us paying the taxes, we call bullshit on your free claim.

Then feel free to give it. Just do it with your money. As far as the too many children, there is no such thing as long as the one that is having them provide for them without demanding someone else be forced to do it.

Here's a good example:


This mother of 15 says someone needs to be help accountable and pay for her children. From what I understand, she has three baby daddies. While I don't know who they are, I do know they are the ones that are responsible. I also know that since none of them are mine, I'm not.

Sounds like a great candidate for birth control.

Yes taxes pay for it and it's cheaper than 15 kids.

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

I want those choosing to have sex provide their own birth control and those having children to support their own. In other words, I want those making the choice to be responsible for the choice.

If birth control was provided yet the woman still got pregnant, does that exempt taxpayers from supporting her and her kids if she can't? Or, do you want it both ways where she's provided with something but taxpayers still get he bill for the latter?

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like a great candidate for birth control.

Yes taxes pay for it and it's cheaper than 15 kids.

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

I want those choosing to have sex provide their own birth control and those having children to support their own. In other words, I want those making the choice to be responsible for the choice.

If birth control was provided yet the woman still got pregnant, does that exempt taxpayers from supporting her and her kids if she can't? Or, do you want it both ways where she's provided with something but taxpayers still get he bill for the latter?

So you want to live in fantasy land. And the repub party implodes...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sounds like a great candidate for birth control.

Yes taxes pay for it and it's cheaper than 15 kids.

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

I want those choosing to have sex provide their own birth control and those having children to support their own. In other words, I want those making the choice to be responsible for the choice.

If birth control was provided yet the woman still got pregnant, does that exempt taxpayers from supporting her and her kids if she can't? Or, do you want it both ways where she's provided with something but taxpayers still get he bill for the latter?

I want, I want, I want, what a fuckin' infant. How about dealing with reality instead? And answering fucking simple questions like a man, for once.

 

[Conservative65]

And we are all better off if those mistakes can be avoided. So give out birth control.

Far too rational for ConJob who wants it both ways. In his world that works apparently, just not in the real one.

Both way? Can't be since there is an option currently when a woman gets pregnant. If she has a kid she can't afford, it isn't because she didn't have another choice.

You don't want her to get an abortion, which you don't want to pay for, and you don't want her to have a kid, that you'd have to pay for. You want it both ways and still can't tell me why I should pay for the damn schools?

When it comes to an abortion, it's not what I want that matters, it's what is still legal for her to do. There are a lot of things I wish people didn't do because I've seen what can happen. However, my wants can't stop them if what they want to do it legal. Since abortion is legal and her choice, she should pay. Since abortion is legal, if she chooses to have a kid, she pays. If she can't, I didn't dictate her choice. She made it.

If you don't want to pay for schools, don't. Mine went to private school so it didn't affect them either way. See how that works fuckhead?

 

[Conservative65]

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

I want those choosing to have sex provide their own birth control and those having children to support their own. In other words, I want those making the choice to be responsible for the choice.

If birth control was provided yet the woman still got pregnant, does that exempt taxpayers from supporting her and her kids if she can't? Or, do you want it both ways where she's provided with something but taxpayers still get he bill for the latter?

So you want to live in fantasy land. And the repub party implodes...

I live in the land of personal responsibility. You live in a world where you're stupid enough to be willing to pay for something you were told was none of your business. What a dumbass and you wonder why the rest of us think you're stupid piece of shit.

 

[Conservative65]

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

I want those choosing to have sex provide their own birth control and those having children to support their own. In other words, I want those making the choice to be responsible for the choice.

If birth control was provided yet the woman still got pregnant, does that exempt taxpayers from supporting her and her kids if she can't? Or, do you want it both ways where she's provided with something but taxpayers still get he bill for the latter?

I want, I want, I want, what a fuckin' infant. How about dealing with reality instead? And answering fucking simple questions like a man, for once.

Reality is she chooses, she pays.

I offered you a challenge to prove what you posted earlier face to face. How about being a man and accepting or proving you're a pussy and coming up with some excuse why you won't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you don't want to pay for schools, don't. Mine went to private school so it didn't affect them either way. See how that works fuckhead?

Hey, fuckhead, try answering the question in a rational way instead of saying, Hey, just don't pay your taxes. Fucking infant, like Bripat. When cornered they just run back to their childish fantasy of how the world should work, but doesn't at all.

 

[Conservative65]

Then, unlike you claimed, it isn't free. What's cheaper is her paying for her birth control since it was HER choice to have sex with those three. What's cheaper is those three paying for the kids they produced. Either way, it's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund a personal choice they didn't make.

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

I want those choosing to have sex provide their own birth control and those having children to support their own. In other words, I want those making the choice to be responsible for the choice.

If birth control was provided yet the woman still got pregnant, does that exempt taxpayers from supporting her and her kids if she can't? Or, do you want it both ways where she's provided with something but taxpayers still get he bill for the latter?

I want, I want, I want, what a fuckin' infant. How about dealing with reality instead? And answering fucking simple questions like a man, for once.

That sounds just like all the freeloaders who think others should fund their choices. They want, and want, and want yet do nothing in return but whine.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Because the "personal business" you're talking about involves the calculated killing of other people (innocent people).

======
God kills millions of zygotes and fetuses every day around the world.

Women in every country every day have miscarriages which is essentially the same as an abortion and they did nothing to cause it.

Every day millions of women in every country have fetuses that failed to attach to the womb flushed out during their periods. God let those eggs meet with a sperm and get together but he has no qualms about not letting them attach to the uterus and aborting them.

Many do attach but fail to thrive and they die in the womb and that's another God performed abortion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

The same senator probably thinks we have too many children in broken homes and the poor shouldn't have kids they can't afford.

When is the fight against masturbation? That could have been a child...

The gun repubs say laws don't stop crimes, but this one will stop abortions?

In Okiehoma, conception takes place when a man buys a woman a drink.

A man doesn't have to buy you a drink to get a piece. You stand on the corner with a sign.

Even if that were true, you wouldn't be able to afford me, Cuntservative pussy.

 

[Conservative65]

If you don't want to pay for schools, don't. Mine went to private school so it didn't affect them either way. See how that works fuckhead?

Hey, fuckhead, try answering the question in a rational way instead of saying, Hey, just don't pay your taxes. Fucking infant, like Bripat.

Typical Liberal that makes excuses when someone doesn't provide the answer they want to hear. I provided a rational answer. I'm sorry you were raised to be so stupid you can't determine when it is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Free to her. It's in the best interests of everyone to avoid this.

Not free to those doing the funding.

It's not in my interest to fund a choice she made. Once she says her body is her choice, I'm done with her. If the end result is her having kids she can't support, I don't care. They aren't mine and I was told to butt out. I did. Her problem now.

Well in the real world the other choice is more children. You want more children or pay for some birth control?

I want those choosing to have sex provide their own birth control and those having children to support their own. In other words, I want those making the choice to be responsible for the choice.

If birth control was provided yet the woman still got pregnant, does that exempt taxpayers from supporting her and her kids if she can't? Or, do you want it both ways where she's provided with something but taxpayers still get he bill for the latter?

I want, I want, I want, what a fuckin' infant. How about dealing with reality instead? And answering fucking simple questions like a man, for once.

Reality is she chooses, she pays.

I offered you a challenge to prove what you posted earlier face to face. How about being a man and accepting or proving you're a pussy and coming up with some excuse why you won't.

Why don't you try growing beyond picking fights on the playground you goddamned child...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you don't want to pay for schools, don't. Mine went to private school so it didn't affect them either way. See how that works fuckhead?

Hey, fuckhead, try answering the question in a rational way instead of saying, Hey, just don't pay your taxes. Fucking infant, like Bripat.

Typical Liberal that makes excuses when someone doesn't provide the answer they want to hear. I provided a rational answer. I'm sorry you were raised to be so stupid you can't determine when it is.

Yeah, just don't pay your taxes is your "rational" answer. Goddamn you're an infant.

 

[Conservative65]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

The same senator probably thinks we have too many children in broken homes and the poor shouldn't have kids they can't afford.

When is the fight against masturbation? That could have been a child...

The gun repubs say laws don't stop crimes, but this one will stop abortions?

In Okiehoma, conception takes place when a man buys a woman a drink.

A man doesn't have to buy you a drink to get a piece. You stand on the corner with a sign.

Even if that were true, you wouldn't be able to afford me, Cuntservative pussy.

Oh, you ASSume that I would want a doorknob like you. Everyone has had their turn with you.