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

[jillian]

I live in the real world where people are helping the woman with 15 kids. That is the reality and not going to change. So rather than have lots like her I prefer to pay for some birth control, much cheaper.

In the real world, the three that produced those 15 kids with her support her and their kids. Funny how you define helping as coming from a mandate. Helping and sharing is a voluntarily action by the giver not a mandate from the taker. If you give her money, you're enabling her to continue to have little bastards she can't afford.

Like I said, provide her all you want with your money. You feel the need to do so.

If you pay taxes you are too. That is the reality, all your whining doesn't change that.

And it should stop immediately. So sad you are stupid enough to believe someone making a choice they tell you isn't your business should get money. I say let them do without until they can pay.

Well it isn't going to stop so you mine as well join the real world. Your selfish fantasy is just that.

If you want to be stupid, you've proven you don't mind.

Selfish is the tramp that has kids she can't afford then expects others to pay for her choice. I support MY kids.

loser, the fact that you're calling someone a tramp says all we need to know about your motives.

clearly like most wingnut misogynists, you have zero interest in "life" or the woman.... which is why you have no say... aside from the fact that you're barely smart enough to tie your own shoes and definitely not smart enough to make decisions for others.

it's also not worth further discussion. criminalizing reproductive choice, a constitutional right, is unconstitutional. notwithstanding the fact that some disgusting theocrat wants to gin up the "base" in an election year doesn't make the bill any more constitutional.

nutters.

 

[Conservative65]

In the real world, the three that produced those 15 kids with her support her and their kids. Funny how you define helping as coming from a mandate. Helping and sharing is a voluntarily action by the giver not a mandate from the taker. If you give her money, you're enabling her to continue to have little bastards she can't afford.

Like I said, provide her all you want with your money. You feel the need to do so.

If you pay taxes you are too. That is the reality, all your whining doesn't change that.

And it should stop immediately. So sad you are stupid enough to believe someone making a choice they tell you isn't your business should get money. I say let them do without until they can pay.

Well it isn't going to stop so you mine as well join the real world. Your selfish fantasy is just that.

If you want to be stupid, you've proven you don't mind.

Selfish is the tramp that has kids she can't afford then expects others to pay for her choice. I support MY kids.

loser, the fact that you're calling someone a tramp says all we need to know about your motives.

clearly like most wingnut misogynists, you have zero interest in "life" or the woman.... which is why you have no say... aside from the fact that you're barely smart enough to tie your own shoes and definitely not smart enough to make decisions for others.

I don't have any interest in helping a woman that tells me what she does with her body in her choice and that I should butt out then expects help when she can't afford it.

The only say I want is with MY money and the say is no when it comes to a request to help someone who told me to butt out when she made the decision with her body. If she says it's her business, it's her business whether she can afford the choice or not. I don't give a shit what happens to her.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't give a shit what happens to her.

Or her children who made, well just look at that, no choice...

 

[Conservative65]

And it should stop immediately. So sad you are stupid enough to believe someone making a choice they tell you isn't your business should get money. I say let them do without until they can pay.

Do without - shelter, food, heat, clothing. Serves her right, right little prick?

SHE made the choice, I didn't.

she did that on her own?

how funny that you don't want men responsible for their "choices"

but punish the harlots.

this is why none of us listen to the wingnut men who think they should make choices for women.

When you Liberals start supporting the concept of the one that got her pregnant doing his job, I will. However, you bypass him and go straight to the taxpayers when she can't.



This is a prime example. She says someone should be held accountable and has to pay for her kids. I know who that is. It's the three that got her pregnant with fifteen kids. I know who it isn't. It's those of us that didn't do that. Since the woman with 15 kids doesn't include the ones she spread her legs for, I don't either.

See how easy that is?

 

[Conservative65]

I don't give a shit what happens to her.

Or her children who made, well just look at that, no choice...

Since her choice includes the result and I was told to butt out of the choice, I butt out of the result, too. Her kids she chose to have are not my responsibility. I stayed out of her choice which means I stay out of everything related to it. It's easy.

My children didn't make the choice but any amount taken from me, regardless of how small you think it may be, takes from them, as well. They didn't make the choice but you don't mind them having less. I expect nothing more from the one making her choice than I do myself. How is that wrong? It would be different if I didn't provide for mine and expected her to do so.

 

[Conservative65]

In the real world, the three that produced those 15 kids with her support her and their kids. Funny how you define helping as coming from a mandate. Helping and sharing is a voluntarily action by the giver not a mandate from the taker. If you give her money, you're enabling her to continue to have little bastards she can't afford.

Like I said, provide her all you want with your money. You feel the need to do so.

If you pay taxes you are too. That is the reality, all your whining doesn't change that.

And it should stop immediately. So sad you are stupid enough to believe someone making a choice they tell you isn't your business should get money. I say let them do without until they can pay.

Well it isn't going to stop so you mine as well join the real world. Your selfish fantasy is just that.

If you want to be stupid, you've proven you don't mind.

Selfish is the tramp that has kids she can't afford then expects others to pay for her choice. I support MY kids.

loser, the fact that you're calling someone a tramp says all we need to know about your motives.

clearly like most wingnut misogynists, you have zero interest in "life" or the woman.... which is why you have no say... aside from the fact that you're barely smart enough to tie your own shoes and definitely not smart enough to make decisions for others.

it's also not worth further discussion. criminalizing reproductive choice, a constitutional right, is unconstitutional. the fact that some disgusting theocrat wants to gin up the "base" in an election year doesn't make the bill any more constitutional.

nutters.

I would say a woman having multiple children with multiple baby daddies, none of which she ever married, makes her a tramp. Maybe you prefer the word slut or ho. Either way, the result is the same.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are one dumb little ****, not even man enough to answer an obvious question. How about this, try answering your OWN goddamned question:

Conservative65 wrote: "MY kids went to private school. Should I get a refund since I didn't use them?"

Well, fuckhead, yes or no? (and don't tell us that you are such a pussy you can't even answer your own questions!)

15 minutes and useless bitch can't even answer his own damn question!!! Utterly pathetic. Just sad to even watch...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business?

Because they are authoritarians and love to tell everyone what to do. But they are big on freedom right?

If a woman chooses to have a child instead of an abortion but can't support herself and the child, should the government be able to tell the rest of us that we have to do it? I personally choose no in that case.

What a wonderful world you envision.

Tell me why I should support the result of a PERSONAL choice I was told was none of my business when it was made. I envision a world where those making personal choices while telling others to butt out funding the choices they make. You envision a world where people can make a choice that produces a result they don't like and even if they said butt out when making it, you think it's OK to be told to offset the costs. You and I can both have what we want and the government need not be involved. If you think a woman that told you to butt out has a child she can't afford, write her a check to support her and the child. Since she made the choice, I don't feel it's my responsibility. You get what you want and so do I.[/QUOTE]

Your view is pure fantasy. You obviously don't have even a basic understanding of human nature. You seem to believe that your ideal world where everyone exercises complete personal responsibility will just appear without putting in any work to change peoples' behavior. It takes generations to elevate even a marginal percentage of the most at risk segments of the populace.
But you just keep on repeating your personal responsibility mantra. Someday you may just conjure your ideal world from the awesome power of your moral superiority.

 

[Conservative65]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business?

Because they are authoritarians and love to tell everyone what to do. But they are big on freedom right?

If a woman chooses to have a child instead of an abortion but can't support herself and the child, should the government be able to tell the rest of us that we have to do it? I personally choose no in that case.

What a wonderful world you envision.

Tell me why I should support the result of a PERSONAL choice I was told was none of my business when it was made. I envision a world where those making personal choices while telling others to butt out funding the choices they make. You envision a world where people can make a choice that produces a result they don't like and even if they said butt out when making it, you think it's OK to be told to offset the costs. You and I can both have what we want and the government need not be involved. If you think a woman that told you to butt out has a child she can't afford, write her a check to support her and the child. Since she made the choice, I don't feel it's my responsibility. You get what you want and so do I.

Your view is pure fantasy. You obviously don't have even a basic understanding of human nature. You seem to believe that your ideal world where everyone exercises complete personal responsibility will just appear without putting in any work to change peoples' behavior. It takes generations to elevate even a marginal percentage of the most at risk segments of the populace.
But you just keep on repeating your personal responsibility mantra. Someday you may just conjure your ideal world from the awesome power of your moral superiority.[/QUOTE]

If you continue to enable people by paying for the bad results of their personal choices, they have no need to change their behavior. That I don't expect others to pay for bad choices I've make proves my moral superiority. That you're willing to continue to enable people hoping they will magically change proves you're an idiot.

I would end all unconstitutional social welfare in 5 years on the national level. It would be up to the States to do it if they so chose according to the 10th Amendment reserved powers. If a State didn't do it to the level you think they should, that's nothing more than an opportunity for you to prove you care as much as you say you care.

 

[S.J.]

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.

What's your point?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Because they are authoritarians and love to tell everyone what to do. But they are big on freedom right?

If a woman chooses to have a child instead of an abortion but can't support herself and the child, should the government be able to tell the rest of us that we have to do it? I personally choose no in that case.

What a wonderful world you envision.

Tell me why I should support the result of a PERSONAL choice I was told was none of my business when it was made. I envision a world where those making personal choices while telling others to butt out funding the choices they make. You envision a world where people can make a choice that produces a result they don't like and even if they said butt out when making it, you think it's OK to be told to offset the costs. You and I can both have what we want and the government need not be involved. If you think a woman that told you to butt out has a child she can't afford, write her a check to support her and the child. Since she made the choice, I don't feel it's my responsibility. You get what you want and so do I.

Your view is pure fantasy. You obviously don't have even a basic understanding of human nature. You seem to believe that your ideal world where everyone exercises complete personal responsibility will just appear without putting in any work to change peoples' behavior. It takes generations to elevate even a marginal percentage of the most at risk segments of the populace.
But you just keep on repeating your personal responsibility mantra. Someday you may just conjure your ideal world from the awesome power of your moral superiority.

If you continue to enable people by paying for the bad results of their personal choices, they have no need to change their behavior. That I don't expect others to pay for bad choices I've make proves my moral superiority. That you're willing to continue to enable people hoping they will magically change proves you're an idiot.

I would end all unconstitutional social welfare in 5 years on the national level. It would be up to the States to do it if they so chose according to the 10th Amendment reserved powers. If a State didn't do it to the level you think they should, that's nothing more than an opportunity for you to prove you care as much as you say you care.[/QUOTE]

Public assistance programs do not in any way enable people to make or continue to make bad decisions. Most recipients receive aid for less than one year. Your understanding of the world is juvenile at best. Like I said just repeat your personal responsibility mantra in it will surely happen.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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

Fetuses? Really? And what happens when the kid is born? I'm sure you'll be happily supporting food stamps.

 

[S.J.]

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

Fetuses? Really? And what happens when the kid is born? I'm sure you'll be happily supporting food stamps.

That's like saying if I don't want people to rob other people I should be willing to give them money so they won't have to rob.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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

Fetuses? Really? And what happens when the kid is born? I'm sure you'll be happily supporting food stamps.

That's like saying if I don't want people to rob other people I should be willing to give them money so they won't have to rob.

What? The federal government doesn't personally redistribute your tax dollars to give food stamps to a single mother.

 

[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.

What's your point?

========
God must approve of abortion since he does so many of them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Republican seeks to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[paulitician]

If you think this won't get tossed, especially with no exceptions, you're kidding yourself. This is for show, only.

Maybe? But the message is clear. Oklahoma is not a Baby Killer-friendly State. Folks like you aren't welcome there. Period, end of story.

Folks like me wouldn't stand on the border and piss on the Governor. Not worth the piss.

Pretty sure Oklahomans are fine with you Communists/Progressives leaving. They care about babies. Bye.

smh...they don't give a shit about babies.

I don't give a shit about someone who says what they do is none of my business then demands I, along with others, pay for the results of a choice we were told was none of our business when the person making the choice can't. Here's how it works. You decide, you pay. If you can't, do without and tough shit.

The usual suspects won't admit it, but you make a valid point. According to them, it's only our business when we're being expected to pay for someone else's poor choices in life. Otherwise, we should just shut up and mind our own business. They're very disingenuous hypocritical people.

 

[paulitician]

Folks like me wouldn't stand on the border and piss on the Governor. Not worth the piss.

Pretty sure Oklahomans are fine with you Communists/Progressives leaving. They care about babies. Bye.

smh...they don't give a shit about babies.

I don't give a shit about someone who says what they do is none of my business then demands I, along with others, pay for the results of a choice we were told was none of our business when the person making the choice can't. Here's how it works. You decide, you pay. If you can't, do without and tough shit.

Do without what, food to feed a child?

When she said it was her choice because it was her body and I should butt out, I butted out. After that, not my concern. I did what I was asked to do. Now, it's her turn to do her job as a mother.

Yes, shut up and mind your own business... Until it's time for you to be forced to pay for their decisions. Then it's all your business. Pretty convenient, right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm a vegetarian.

The point here is that people are talking about LIFE.

Humans are ANIMALS. That's a fact.

Animals have life. Humans have life.

If you call yourself "pro-life" and then decide that animals are worth less than humans, what's to call yourself "pro-life" and say that black people are worth less than white people?

Life is precious or it's not. Which is it?

A human being is a human being, no matter what color.
An animal is an animal. I do see you comparison to humans being an animal, Obama is a jackass. Your comparison is invalid.

A human is a human
An animal is an animal
A human is an animal

This is scientific FACT.

Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"All animals aremotile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently, at some point in their lives. Their body planeventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their lives. All animals are heterotrophs: they must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance."

Sound familiar?

It's not against the law to kill an animal. It is to kill a human.

So?

Are we talking what is the law and isn't?

No, we're talking about what SHOULD BE the law and what shouldn't.

You can't say "Abortions should be illegal because it's illegal to kill humans", that's such a duff argument.

So let's try again.

Is life precious that we shouldn't kill it?
Or, Is life expendable when we decide it should be expendable?

A human life is different than a human life that is a fact no matter how you spin it. You comparing a baby's life to an animals life is kinda disturbing.

A human life is different to a human life?

I'm going to assume you meant an animal life.

So, how is it different, seeing that HUMANS ARE ANIMALS?

Why is it disturbing for me to compare the life of an animal to that of a baby? Please, I'd like to hear your reasons of why it is "disturbing".

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm a vegetarian.

The point here is that people are talking about LIFE.

Humans are ANIMALS. That's a fact.

Animals have life. Humans have life.

If you call yourself "pro-life" and then decide that animals are worth less than humans, what's to call yourself "pro-life" and say that black people are worth less than white people?

Life is precious or it's not. Which is it?

A human being is a human being, no matter what color.
An animal is an animal. I do see you comparison to humans being an animal, Obama is a jackass. Your comparison is invalid.

A human is a human
An animal is an animal
A human is an animal

This is scientific FACT.

Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"All animals aremotile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently, at some point in their lives. Their body planeventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their lives. All animals are heterotrophs: they must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance."

Sound familiar?

It's not against the law to kill an animal. It is to kill a human.

It's also not against the law for a woman to get an abortion.

As science progresses it will become against the law, like it was at onetime.

You're using science, this is a joke, you're ignoring the scientific fact that humans are animals.