Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the matter? Are you afraid the mother might have a shred of compassion when faced with the reality that she's killing her own offspring?

Cut the crap.

The central question is: Do you think THE STATE should have the coercive power to command by law that its doctors must enforce this procedure on its citizens, even if both they and the patient are unwilling?

It appears that you do.

Do you?

I didn't answer the question on purpose.

The reason I didn't answer is because I think you're cherrypicking the state-run issues about which to get outraged.

You don't honestly pose this question because you disagree with state-enforced law. You ask it because you disagree with the fact that the state is enforcing something you don't like.

And that's disingenous. State laws against murder are also enforced on citizens. But I have no disagreement with that. I support state laws that reflect what I believe is right. Anyone does that.

I support this state law for the same reason I would support an overturning of Roe v. Wade. You condemn it for the same reason you would condemn such an overturning.

So stop trying to make this a separate issue. This is the abortion debate in different clothing, nothing more.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
If the state can do anything it fucking wants like the state can now then yes. Why the hell not? Give it up, the federal government doesn't follow the rule of law, why should the states? If you allow factions on the right to abuse the law, you open up the opportunity for those on the left to abuse it as well. If both dumbfucks on each side would follow the rule of law and quit trying to change it to suit their fucked up ideologies they'd both be better off.
 

SecPro

Member
Jul 17, 2007
147
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
His answer was just a dodge at the question.

He could have answered and then followed with an explanation on how he doesn't think the government should interfere with the private lives of its citizens.

Bullcrap.

You should learn from his wisdom. The answer to that question is above your pay grade, too.

The only people who don't understand what a personal situation this is, each women with her understanding of God or ethics, AND NEVER THE STATE'S, are those too simple or too ignorant to understand that it is above their pay grade, as well.

In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SigArms08
Too inconvenient?

The question is, do you support the government forcing you by law to do this?

My question to you is: Do you personally support the intrusive power of the state coercing its citizens to do this . . . and, if you do, exactly where does your support of coercive state control of a American citizen's private life end?

What's the bar, chief?

If they're in your girlfriend's belly, can they conduct a surprise search of your anus, you know, for the common good?

What is your anus hiding from America, and why is it more sacrosanct to you than your girlfriend's womb?

Well? :|


So what do you have to say about smoking bans and cell phones while driving? Those are things that could end up killing somebody . . . abortion, on the other hand, is guaranteed to end a life.

Just curious to see if your libertarianism is consistently applied.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
Well, this isn't the half of it.

After showing her the Blob of what her baby looks like you got 10-20 jesus phreaks dancing around holding hands telling her "What a Beautiful Baby" and "Don't do it!" "you'll go to hell" Etc...etc...etc....


Yes more BS -- More unwanted kids being born in a Fu#%ed up society ... and you wonder why it's soooo screwed up? Well, take a good look!

 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,649
136
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the matter? Are you afraid the mother might have a shred of compassion when faced with the reality that she's killing her own offspring?

Cut the crap.

The central question is: Do you think THE STATE should have the coercive power to command by law that its doctors must enforce this procedure on its citizens, even if both they and the patient are unwilling?
It appears that you do.

Do you?

I didn't answer the question on purpose.

Please answer the question. It's a simple, straightforward, yes or no question, this question you are ducking.

Please have the personal integrity to answer the question.

Yes or no:

Do you think THE STATE should have the coercive power to command by law that its doctors must enforce this procedure on its citizens, even if both they and the patient are unwilling?

Step us and honestly anwser the question.


 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,649
136
Originally posted by: Atreus21
State laws against murder are also enforced on citizens. But I have no disagreement with that. I support state laws that reflect what I believe is right. Anyone does that.

So, by your logic, it is alright to support state laws that make homosexuality or miscegination or farting in front of the President because YOU may believe that's "right" and because "anyone does that"?

Sorry, Bub. That's weak.

I support state laws against murder (your example) and cell phone while driving (XMan's example) because they impinge on the rights of those mudered (duh) and and those whose safety is put at risk by inattentive cell phone jerks, just as I support the right of the state to impose red lights on all of us.

But, it is the law of the land that abortion is the legal right of a pregnant women in the first trimester, so I OPPOSE the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, as their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

And I want to know if YOU do or you do not.

Answer the question.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,649
136
Just honestly answer the question, Atreus21. :|
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,649
136
Originally posted by: SecPro
In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.

It is the settled law of our Republic, as ruled on by our very own Supreme Court and not incidentally agreed on by a consistent super majority of our citizens, that abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder, so it is NOT 'my rationalization."

Is it you theocratically derived rationalizaion otherwise?

Are you part of the coercive theorcratic minority, or do you believe in the rule of law?

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Christians should first show where in the Bible the Abortion Debate even comes into play before forcing everyone else to accept their view of things.

Good luck finding it.
 

SecPro

Member
Jul 17, 2007
147
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.

It is the settled law of our Republic, as ruled on by our very own Supreme Court and not incidentally agreed on by a consistent super majority of our citizens, that abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder, so it is NOT 'my rationalization."

Is it you theocratically derived rationalizaion otherwise?

Are you part of the coercive theorcratic minority, or do you believe in the rule of law?

I believe in the rule of law but I don't agree wtih Roe v. Wade. Do you agree with every law that's on the books?

Edit: and you can take the theocracy comments and shove 'em. I haven't believed in god since I was very young.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,649
136
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.

It is the settled law of our Republic, as ruled on by our very own Supreme Court and not incidentally agreed on by a consistent super majority of our citizens, that abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder, so it is NOT 'my rationalization."

Is it you theocratically derived rationalizaion otherwise?

Are you part of the coercive theorcratic minority, or do you believe in the rule of law?

I believe in the rule of law but I don't agree wtih Roe v. Wade. Do you agree with every law that's on the books?

If you truly believe in the rule of law then I ask YOU what LEGAL justification you might have for the Oklahoma law in light of Roe v. Wade being the law of the land.

I OPPOSE the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, as their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

Do you?

And if not, why not? Under what legal justification under the rule of law (in which you believe) don't you?


 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
I don't get it. It's not like the fetus is going to look like a baby. Hell, even a 9 month old fetus looks like a splotch of pixels
 

SecPro

Member
Jul 17, 2007
147
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.

It is the settled law of our Republic, as ruled on by our very own Supreme Court and not incidentally agreed on by a consistent super majority of our citizens, that abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder, so it is NOT 'my rationalization."

Is it you theocratically derived rationalizaion otherwise?

Are you part of the coercive theorcratic minority, or do you believe in the rule of law?

I believe in the rule of law but I don't agree wtih Roe v. Wade. Do you agree with every law that's on the books?

If you truly believe in the rule of law then I ask YOU what LEGAL justification you might have for the Oklahoma law in light of Roe v. Wade being the law of the land.

I OPPOSE the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, as their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

Do you?

And if not, why not? Under what legal justification under the rule of law (in which you believe) don't you?

There is no "rule of law" question here. The law was passed by the state legislature and is now state law. Roe v Wade does not forbid this kind of action. States are free to regulate the medical care in their jurisdiction as long as it does not contradict federal law. Someone is challenging the law but it won't be overturned.

You, along with the group suing, just don't like the law. There's absolutely nothing illegal about what they are doing here so get over it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.

It is the settled law of our Republic, as ruled on by our very own Supreme Court and not incidentally agreed on by a consistent super majority of our citizens, that abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder, so it is NOT 'my rationalization."

Is it you theocratically derived rationalizaion otherwise?

Are you part of the coercive theorcratic minority, or do you believe in the rule of law?

I believe in the rule of law but I don't agree wtih Roe v. Wade. Do you agree with every law that's on the books?

If you truly believe in the rule of law then I ask YOU what LEGAL justification you might have for the Oklahoma law in light of Roe v. Wade being the law of the land.

I OPPOSE the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, as their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

Do you?

And if not, why not? Under what legal justification under the rule of law (in which you believe) don't you?

There is no "rule of law" question here. The law was passed by the state legislature and is now state law. Roe v Wade does not forbid this kind of action. States are free to regulate the medical care in their jurisdiction as long as it does not contradict federal law. Someone is challenging the law but it won't be overturned.

You, along with the group suing, just don't like the law. There's absolutely nothing illegal about what they are doing here so get over it.

If you can excuse away RvW, then we can excuse away this Stupidity called a Law.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,649
136
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.

It is the settled law of our Republic, as ruled on by our very own Supreme Court and not incidentally agreed on by a consistent super majority of our citizens, that abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder, so it is NOT 'my rationalization."

Is it you theocratically derived rationalizaion otherwise?

Are you part of the coercive theorcratic minority, or do you believe in the rule of law?

I believe in the rule of law but I don't agree wtih Roe v. Wade. Do you agree with every law that's on the books?

If you truly believe in the rule of law then I ask YOU what LEGAL justification you might have for the Oklahoma law in light of Roe v. Wade being the law of the land.

I OPPOSE the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, as their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

Do you?

And if not, why not? Under what legal justification under the rule of law (in which you believe) don't you?

There is no "rule of law" question here. The law was passed by the state legislature and is now state law. Roe v Wade does not forbid this kind of action. States are free to regulate the medical care in their jurisdiction as long as it does not contradict federal law. Someone is challenging the law but it won't be overturned.

You, along with the group suing, just don't like the law. There's absolutely nothing illegal about what they are doing here so get over it.

AGAIN, what is YOUR legal justification for allowing the STATE to dictate to a doctor and his or her patient what they should do in this case?

WHAT? Why should the STATE be allowed to forcibly intrude on a women and her doctor's legal right to decide on a abortion?

Is THIS your idea of what the STATE should be doing?

IS IT?

WHY won't YOU answer that question?

Edit: Again, again again, PLEASE step up and answer this specific question:

WHAT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION do you see for the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that the ultrasoudn screen be turned toward the woman during this forced procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, since their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

DO YOU THINK THIS SPECIFIC LAW IS AN APPROPRIATE LAW and if so, why?

What is the limit for coercive state intrusion in vicimless and legal private procedures under YOUR CONCEPTION of American government?

No generalities now. Please directly answer the questions.




 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Originally posted by: techs
Good thing the Christian Scientists don't run Oklahoma. I'd hate to have to look at a streptococcus slide before I could get antibiotics.

They did an article not long ago in Sci Am about the Vatican scientists and they actually sounded very sane.

And in all fairness, at least with this specific issue, they believe they are protecting freedom and not restricting/violating it. They just disagree on when a fetus should be extended the rights of a human being which is a rather debatable subject.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SecPro
In other words, as long as you can rationalize it in your own mind it's OK to commit murder.

It is the settled law of our Republic, as ruled on by our very own Supreme Court and not incidentally agreed on by a consistent super majority of our citizens, that abortion in the first trimester is NOT murder, so it is NOT 'my rationalization."

Is it you theocratically derived rationalizaion otherwise?

Are you part of the coercive theorcratic minority, or do you believe in the rule of law?

I believe in the rule of law but I don't agree wtih Roe v. Wade. Do you agree with every law that's on the books?

If you truly believe in the rule of law then I ask YOU what LEGAL justification you might have for the Oklahoma law in light of Roe v. Wade being the law of the land.

I OPPOSE the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, as their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

Do you?

And if not, why not? Under what legal justification under the rule of law (in which you believe) don't you?

There is no "rule of law" question here. The law was passed by the state legislature and is now state law. Roe v Wade does not forbid this kind of action. States are free to regulate the medical care in their jurisdiction as long as it does not contradict federal law. Someone is challenging the law but it won't be overturned.

You, along with the group suing, just don't like the law. There's absolutely nothing illegal about what they are doing here so get over it.

AGAIN, what is YOUR legal justification for allowing the STATE to dictate to a doctor and his or her patient what they should do in this case?

WHAT? Why should the STATE be allowed to forcibly intrude on a women and her doctor's legal right to decide on a abortion?

Is THIS your idea of what the STATE should be doing?

IS IT?

WHY won't YOU answer that question?

Edit: Again, again again, PLEASE step up and answer this specific question:

WHAT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION do you see for the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that the ultrasoudn screen be turned toward the woman during this forced procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, since their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

DO YOU THINK THIS SPECIFIC LAW IS AN APPROPRIATE LAW and if so, why?

What is the limit for coercive state intrusion in vicimless and legal private procedures under YOUR CONCEPTION of American government?

No generalities now. Please directly answer the questions.

The state legislature passed it. That seems like a legal justification.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
The relevant Amendments of the Constitution to Abortion:

9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's an issue of state rights vs. individual rights. #9 says that the people retain rights that are not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. #10 says that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is retained by states, or the people. So what you are arguing is if the state has a right to interfere with a woman's body, against her will. The people of OK obviously decided it was within the states rights to do so, and gave up some of their freedom to allow it.

I think it is similar to the "right to die" position, in that terminally ill patients have a right to not continue treatment. To me, it's a personal issue, and one that is most likely not reached lightly. I do not believe religious grounds should be permitted in the discussion, simply because this a country where we are free to express any religion we choose. What if my religion condemns a family that brings a child into the world that it cannot support? Or one addicted to crack? Or one that will live a life of terrible suffering due to a severe genetic problem?

The problem with abortion is that people try to make it a black and white issue, but it's not (like a lot of things). There are many shades of gray. I'd agree that using abortion as a form of birth control is outrageous. I'd also say forcing a women who was raped by her father (or anyone) to have a child is equally outrageous. Some say only if the mother's life is in danger, but that's flawed because pregnancy is inherently life-threatening. Think of all the women who have died giving birth.

I don't think you can take the position of "no abortions except in cases of rape/incest" because then a woman who wanted an abortion would have to say she was raped. Rape is horrifically under reported, usually about 5% of rapes actually get reported to the police. Many women who ARE raped (as defined as unwanted oral/vaginal/anal penetration) do not consider themselves to be raped. My senior project in college is in Sexual Victimization among women, and I can tell you that all the research points to about 50% of women experiencing some type of unwanted sexual contact (fondling, consensual but unwanted sex (coercion), attempted rape, completed rape) during their lifetime, but few will say they were actually "raped" even if they will admit to experiences that are legally defined as rape. They do not want the label of being a rape victim, or they blame themselves, or they worry what others will say. It's a very dicey issue, and learning about the psychology of rape has really changed my view on abortion.

I hate abortion, but I am unwilling, based on my education and personal beliefs, to impose my view on other people. To those who use religion as a cover, I will remind you that it is not our job to condemn people. "Let he who is not a sinner cast the first stone." If there is a God, and I think there is, then it is solely within God's responsibility to determine whether or not what the person did during life deserves to be punished. Like it or not, people are FREE to have different viewpoints in this country. Learn to accept it, and live your own life, rather than worrying about what other people choose to do with theirs.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
AGAIN, what is YOUR legal justification for allowing the STATE to dictate to a doctor and his or her patient what they should do in this case?

WHAT? Why should the STATE be allowed to forcibly intrude on a women and her doctor's legal right to decide on a abortion?

Is THIS your idea of what the STATE should be doing?

IS IT?

WHY won't YOU answer that question?

Edit: Again, again again, PLEASE step up and answer this specific question:

WHAT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION do you see for the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that the ultrasoudn screen be turned toward the woman during this forced procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, since their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

DO YOU THINK THIS SPECIFIC LAW IS AN APPROPRIATE LAW and if so, why?

What is the limit for coercive state intrusion in vicimless and legal private procedures under YOUR CONCEPTION of American government?

No generalities now. Please directly answer the questions.

Even if you accept the Roe decision, there is no reason to categorize this as an 'undue' burden.

It's no different than a usury law, or many others we have on the books.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the matter? Are you afraid the mother might have a shred of compassion when faced with the reality that she's killing her own offspring?

Cut the crap.

The central question is: Do you think THE STATE should have the coercive power to command by law that its doctors must enforce this procedure on its citizens, even if both they and the patient are unwilling?
It appears that you do.

Do you?

I didn't answer the question on purpose.

Please answer the question. It's a simple, straightforward, yes or no question, this question you are ducking.

Please have the personal integrity to answer the question.

Yes or no:

Do you think THE STATE should have the coercive power to command by law that its doctors must enforce this procedure on its citizens, even if both they and the patient are unwilling?

Step us and honestly anwser the question.
Preach on Bro!

We need to reserve the states coercive powers for forcing employment of cross-dresser and bisexuals!

 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SigArms08
Too inconvenient?

The question is, do you support the government forcing you by law to do this?

My question to you is: Do you personally support the intrusive power of the state coercing its citizens to do this . . . and, if you do, exactly where does your support of coercive state control of a American citizen's private life end?

What's the bar, chief?

If they're in your girlfriend's belly, can they conduct a surprise search of your anus, you know, for the common good?

What is your anus hiding from America, and why is it more sacrosanct to you than your girlfriend's womb?

Well? :|

Why so angry, Perknose? Many choices that people make in a society are guided by the rule of law, even if it seems a bit inconvenient. If you do extensive work on your home, it needs to be inspected. If you'd like to operate heavy machinery, you need to be licensed. If you decide that you'd like to open up a business, there are plenty of hoops that you have to jump through. If you'd like to have an abortion in Oklahoma during the first part of a pregnancy, then undergo an ultrasound. Its a big decision to make (abortion), and Oklahoma is still allowing a choice. It sounds like they would like those women to make the choice with a clear understanding of what they are doing.

Of course the doctors at the abortion clinics don't want to provide an ultrasound, bit of a potential conflict of interest. They are paid to perform abortions, the last thing they want is for somebody to change their mind.

Do you consider having to send your children to school as a coercive power of the state? Obtaining a drivers license? Permit to buy a handgun? Permit to walk your dog in a park (http://www.ci.rochester.mi.us/...ents/dogparkpermit.pdf)? Yes, where do the coercive state controls over an American citizen's private life end?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
Doctor: Ma'am...it looks like a blob...

Tech looking at a Life size picture; "the pinhead right there? No, maybe this one? Oh, the little bitty one over here or is that a fibroid???? No, you're not pregnant mam, just need a good douch."