PDA

View Full Version : A woman's body: Is it the government's business?



badger
2/28/2012, 03:35 PM
There apparently was quite the rally today at our state Capitol regarding this "personhood" bill:

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120228_336_0_OKLAHO12436)


Hundreds gathered Tuesday on the north steps of the state Capitol to protest legislative efforts to declare that "personhood" begins at conception.


They were loud, enthusiastic and at times off-color.

Senate Bill 1433 by Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, awaits action in the House after securing approval in the Senate.

Full disclosure: I am a girl and guys, something's gotta give, doesn't it? On one hand, the government finds it your responsibility to not be a deadbeat when you helped bring a child into this world and perhaps this is the government's way of having the same expectations placed on the mother. Just like a guy cannot simply drop his DNA and drop out of the child's life free from financial obligation, this bill is basically saying that a mother cannot ignore the rights of an unborn child she is carrying.

On the other... I have heard that when a woman's body endures pregnancy, it is a level of pain that nobody else will ever experience in any way, shape or form (short of bad ways to die or be tortured I guess) and this discomfort and body changes last for nine months, something that a male legislators, judges and other decision makers in the political/legal process will never personally have to endure and thus, never fully personally understand themselves.

On a crazier thought... does this bill even do anything, or than say that a person is a person from the moment of conception? It doesn't illegalize abortion, or contraception, or pretty much everything else you think that it would.

Thoughts?

KantoSooner
2/28/2012, 04:32 PM
On the issue of labor pain. My doctor, who is female and has had kids said labor and kidney stones were a toss up.

As to the government's role in monitoring, regulating, legislating or otherwise controlling a woman's body? There is no legitimate role for government here. The only folks who propose one are people who remain locked in the vestiges of a mindset in which women were chattel of the men who owned them, as were that man's other livestock, slaves or domestic pets.

TUSooner
2/28/2012, 04:32 PM
People like bright lines, and they think conception is a good one. Especially when it's "not my problem." Sorry, I got nuthin'....

Soonerjeepman
2/28/2012, 04:48 PM
On the issue of labor pain. My doctor, who is female and has had kids said labor and kidney stones were a toss up.

As to the government's role in monitoring, regulating, legislating or otherwise controlling a woman's body? There is no legitimate role for government here. The only folks who propose one are people who remain locked in the vestiges of a mindset in which women were chattel of the men who owned them, as were that man's other livestock, slaves or domestic pets.

umm...no..MOST (and all the ones I know) of the pro-life folks are sticking up for the baby inside...and do not believe in any of the crap you said...but believe what you will...

might add...that less than 2-4% of abortions are due to incest or rape...

on Badgers line...I can see why the pro choice/abortion folks don't want this, guess in my mind if conception is the beginning of person hood then abortion would be murder...or ruled that way.

Midtowner
2/28/2012, 04:57 PM
On a crazier thought... does this bill even do anything, or than say that a person is a person from the moment of conception? It doesn't illegalize abortion, or contraception, or pretty much everything else you think that it would.

I won't get into the moral ambiguities. They're irreconcilable. Might as well debate the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

As to the legal aspects, while we know the law won't make abortion illegal, it's going to create a LOT of legal ambiguities. For example:

1) Once a child is conceived, can I immediately file a Petition for child support?
2) Once a child is conceived, does the father immediately have a right to visitation?
3) Once a child is conceived, can a court make a determination that there should be joint custody, allowing the father to participate in the medical decisions pertaining to the child absent the mother's consent?
4) If someone is artificially inseminated, several embryos will be destroyed in the process. Who is guilty of murder?
5) What will the effect be on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act? (UCCJEA) [an act, which among other things, determines where a child custody may be brought]

I mean there are just so many aspects of the law which could be altered by this. It creates hundreds, maybe thousands of ambiguities. It's totally reckless.

badger
2/28/2012, 05:07 PM
on Badgers line...I can see why the pro choice/abortion folks don't want this, guess in my mind if conception is the beginning of person hood then abortion would be murder...or ruled that way.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that abortion is a woman's right, so this bill explicitly states that it does not outlaw abortion, nor does it allow contraception. Otherwise, methinks a legal challenge would point a finger at the Supreme Court ruling and the law (assuming it passes the state house and Gov. Fallin doesn't veto it) would be declared unconstitutional.

Soooo... doctors are reportedly worried about how this will impact fertilization and embryos and such. However, other than that, this law appears to do nothing. Because once again, it dos NOT outlaw abortion and does NOT outlaw contraception.

TUSooner
2/28/2012, 05:17 PM
I won't get into the moral ambiguities. They're irreconcilable. Might as well debate the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

As to the legal aspects, while we know the law won't make abortion illegal, it's going to create a LOT of legal ambiguities. For example:

1) Once a child is conceived, can I immediately file a Petition for child support?
2) Once a child is conceived, does the father immediately have a right to visitation?
3) Once a child is conceived, can a court make a determination that there should be joint custody, allowing the father to participate in the medical decisions pertaining to the child absent the mother's consent?
4) If someone is artificially inseminated, several embryos will be destroyed in the process. Who is guilty of murder?
5) What will the effect be on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act? (UCCJEA) [an act, which among other things, determines where a child custody may be brought]

I mean there are just so many aspects of the law which could be altered by this. It creates hundreds, maybe thousands of ambiguities. It's totally reckless.


Hear him! Hear him!!

And yes, Baj, this looks like another act of the Oklahoma legislature that does nothing but take a stand on some controversy (real or imagined), stir up the self-righteous, position the State squarely "on God's side" and cause both confusion and delight amongst lawyers (depending on what side of the challenge they end up on.)

KantoSooner
2/28/2012, 05:37 PM
the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

.

Shouldn't that be "...who can dance..." I mean angels seem kind of worth treating like people, at least, and all...

KantoSooner
2/28/2012, 05:41 PM
...but believe what you will...

.

Thanks for granting me that freedom. I'll do the same for you. What's more, I'll weigh in that you're probably one hell of a dog owner and treat your cattle humanely, too. Cheers!

Midtowner
2/28/2012, 05:58 PM
Shouldn't that be "...who can dance..." I mean angels seem kind of worth treating like people, at least, and all...

Whether an angel is a who or an it is a better conversation than debating abortion. That's for sure.

Whatever your position on abortion, this is a dumb law which is going to at best do nothing because the courts will declare it unconstitutional for vagueness or for some other reason I'm not even going to try and think about. At worst, it's going to mean that a bunch of devious bastards like myself will start to come up with a bunch of weird arguments which actually end up working. Child support starting at conception? Why the heck not?

This bill would be funny if it wasn't so potentially harmful. We booted the Dems in this state because they were corrupt. We replaced the corruption by a blend of single-party-rule corruption and just juvenile asinine legislation which will accomplish no legitimate goal. What do we have to do to get grownups to be our legislators?

badger
2/29/2012, 12:11 PM
I just wanted to share this EDITED photo with you:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2012/20120229_A4_McIntyre0229.jpg

I saw the unedited version of it on facebook, but I'll keep the NSFW version on facebook not here :)

This is Tulsa Democratic Sen. Judy Eason-McIntyre, a fiery energetic and semi-older lady who is one of the last of Oklahoma's Democrat state legislators.

This was at the personhood bill rally yesterday at the OKC cap. There were really, really crazy outrageous signs at the rally, from photos I saw. For example, "Forcing your agenda between my legs is rape."

I kind of admire people willing to go out in public with such an in-your-face message that I would be too shy or perhaps too polite to ever try myself methinks. It will be interesting to see how this bill turns out in the House. My guess is it dies before it reaches a vote.

Ton Loc
2/29/2012, 01:22 PM
Great picture.

Could we just round up all the women and let them vote on all the woman stuff once and for all? No dudes allowed, just the ladies. Then, whatever happens it will be all on them.

badger
2/29/2012, 01:34 PM
Great picture.

I think it also illustrates exactly how a lot of state legislators who are Democrats feel... that rallies and signs that are crazy enough to warrant their own headlines (this is on the front of both the Oklahoman and Tulsa World websites right now, wouldn't be surprised if it makes it to drudge or fark by the end of the day) are the only way that they are going to be heard in a state so red, so right-leaning, so Republican in the house, senate and governor's office at the moment.

I am sure Republicans felt the same way up till about a decade ago, so I'm not faulting anyone for moments like this. It just kind of illustrates the current state of state politics though, yknow? And politics in general.


Could we just round up all the women and let them vote on all the woman stuff once and for all? No dudes allowed, just the ladies. Then, whatever happens it will be all on them.

This is why I can see the male perspective on issues that some women seem to be screaming should not be decided by men. We live in a society of both men and women, much like we live in a society of immigrants, of people of all ages, all backgrounds, all races, etc. These issues should NOT be decided solely by women, even if they seem to be in regards to just the woman's body.

I think the frustration comes from women thinking that these issues are getting decided solely by men, and they are, to a certain extent (Fallin will get to veto or sign if it make it through the House, but the women in the legislature are outnumbered by men). And, of course, the frustration also comes from a state legislature that is soooo dominated by one political party that they are resorting to rallies with crazy headline-grabbing signs to get their point across.

Soonerjeepman
2/29/2012, 02:14 PM
Thanks for granting me that freedom. I'll do the same for you. What's more, I'll weigh in that you're probably one hell of a dog owner and treat your cattle humanely, too. Cheers!

wasn't granting you anything...

umm, yeah I liked my dog, but know it's a dog..put him down at 9 yrs due to cancer and didn't want to spend $$$$ trying to keep him alive...and I love beef...chicken..pork...all are raised for me to eat. Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not...I do treat living things as humanly as possible...but in the end they are animals...no humans...hope that clears it up.

KantoSooner
2/29/2012, 02:40 PM
Sorry, I thought you were allowing me my beliefs.

And, yes, you're quite clear.

AlboSooner
2/29/2012, 10:21 PM
Great picture.

Could we just round up all the women and let them vote on all the woman stuff once and for all? No dudes allowed, just the ladies. Then, whatever happens it will be all on them.

This only makes sense if you are a woman.

Ton Loc
2/29/2012, 10:47 PM
This only makes sense if you are a woman.

I don't necessarily agree with just letting the women vote but damn, this seems to be a never ending drama that will never be truly resolved.

KantoSooner
3/1/2012, 10:23 AM
It's an issue with two competing absolutes. One side or the other loses totally or they both have to agree to a compromise that is abhorent, in some way, to both.

badger
3/1/2012, 11:08 AM
It's an issue with two competing absolutes. One side or the other loses totally or they both have to agree to a compromise that is abhorent, in some way, to both.

That's what compromise is, isn't it? Both sides are not totally happy so that both sides are not totally angry.

KantoSooner
3/1/2012, 11:59 AM
which is why RvW will never fully satisfy anyone. It's a compromise.

Midtowner
3/1/2012, 12:03 PM
which is why RvW will never fully satisfy anyone. It's a compromise.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey actually partially overturned RvW. It's a pretty good compromise and it satisfies me as it protects all of the involved liberty interests in an equitable manner. The only problem with it is the "health of the mother" loophole which seems to swallow the rule since the exception isn't defined.

TheHumanAlphabet
3/1/2012, 01:53 PM
Well, I kind of believe in Ton Loc's view...

I do not believe in abortion as a means of contraception. That is wrong and you are killing a potential life. Have the baby, put it up for adoption like it was done before...Better yet, don't get into that situation voluntarily, there are plenty of means to prevent conception.

If they want to ban abortion, then what male medical procedure do we ban? Prostate surgery? Hair transplants? something else? Don't ban a valid medical procedure. MY MIL had a tubal pregnancy, back in the day, she had to get 3 doctors ok in OK to have the procedure. I can't imagine the pain she was in while shuttling to the various doctors to get approval before the procedure. That's crazy.

Don't mind hinderences to abortion like having an ultrasound, hearing the fetal heartbeat. These things go to preventing abortion as a contraception means. If you need that, you failed and need to live with the consequences in terms I mentioned above. Of course, IMO, others with have differing ones...

8timechamps
3/1/2012, 08:37 PM
There apparently was quite the rally today at our state Capitol regarding this "personhood" bill:

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120228_336_0_OKLAHO12436)



Full disclosure: I am a girl and guys, something's gotta give, doesn't it? On one hand, the government finds it your responsibility to not be a deadbeat when you helped bring a child into this world and perhaps this is the government's way of having the same expectations placed on the mother. Just like a guy cannot simply drop his DNA and drop out of the child's life free from financial obligation, this bill is basically saying that a mother cannot ignore the rights of an unborn child she is carrying.

On the other... I have heard that when a woman's body endures pregnancy, it is a level of pain that nobody else will ever experience in any way, shape or form (short of bad ways to die or be tortured I guess) and this discomfort and body changes last for nine months, something that a male legislators, judges and other decision makers in the political/legal process will never personally have to endure and thus, never fully personally understand themselves.

On a crazier thought... does this bill even do anything, or than say that a person is a person from the moment of conception? It doesn't illegalize abortion, or contraception, or pretty much everything else you think that it would.

Thoughts?

Certainly shouldn't morally and/or legally, but sadly this happens every day.

As for the bill, I'm in the "I'm not a woman, so I should have no say in the matter" camp.

AlboSooner
3/1/2012, 11:17 PM
I don't necessarily agree with just letting the women vote but damn, this seems to be a never ending drama that will never be truly resolved.


The point I made went over you like an angry F16

soonercruiser
3/2/2012, 03:01 PM
I understand all the sides of the argument, and I admit that I cannot be a woman.
(Although some posting here might claim an exception to that.) :tennis:

But, if we "go there", then can we have a full discussion of the science and social ramifications of the bonding of the child to the mother as a result of the "birth experience" (pain and all)?

Can we have a full discission of the medical, psychological, and social damage to the woman and society with the use of contraception and abortion?
(Anybody here even vaguely familiar with the existing medical research on the increase in breast and cervical cancer from the Pill and abortion?)

I believe that the OK personhood bill is "symbolic". And, although some question the constitutionality, this state bill is patterned after existing and "court upheld" laws in other states. When life begins can, and must be esablished in our law and science.

But, just consider this argument about the gobment being in a woman's womb.....then why can the gobment tell me that I have to pay for contraception, abortions, and any other lie-ending procedures that are aginst my religion?.....let alone the long-term cost of this damage to the woman and society. "Many" want it both ways in their favor!

NONE of this will be openly discussed by the "Culture of Death" crowd!
The whole picture is swept under the rug of "woman's right to choose".
:dispirited: What, have we become as a society?

soonercruiser
3/2/2012, 03:09 PM
America's, and the Caholic Church's "chickens have come home to roost"!

Here is a good video on the subject!


http://www.breitbart.tv/priest-to-planned-parenthood-here-comes-the-catholic-church/

Ike
3/2/2012, 03:29 PM
I have a very difficult time believing the "symbolic" nature of the bill. There is nothing about symbolism in the actual bill. "All laws shall be interpreted..." is pretty damn clear. If you take this language seriously (and if it's not to be taken seriously, WTF is it doing in the law?), one would have to require miscarriages to be reported, and investigations into the cause of death performed...just as would be done for the death of a newborn. "I'm sorry you just miscarried ma'am, but I'm going to need you to pee in this cup". This bill (and the proposed ballot initiative, which is even worse), would also, if taken seriously, open the door for the state to stick it's nose in places where it has the potential to do more harm than good. Say a pregnant woman gets diagnosed with cancer such that if she begun treatment immediately, she might have a good shot at a full recovery, but that treatment would endanger the life of the fetus, and waiting until the baby is born to begin treatment would decrease her chances of survival dramatically. Could happen. If you take the language of the bill or proposed amendment seriously, the state would have to appoint an advocate for the fetus, and a court would have to decide who's right to life should win. It's highly unlikely that the state would stick around to help deal with the aftermath of whatever decision they arrived at. Say even that she would rather delay treatment than have an abortion. Well, if she has small kids or a husband that would rather have her around for a lot longer, now it's even more thorny. It's conceivable a court might even rule that she have an abortion against her will.

The what-ifs can be played endlessly with this kind of thing, especially since it's so vague. When it's supporters/authors tell me it will or won't do a particular thing, I have a very hard time believing them, frankly, because the language doesn't mention anything about that. If they want me to believe them, they should write it in the bill.

The implications of this bill/amendment for my family are nothing short of dangerous.

Midtowner
3/2/2012, 03:40 PM
I have a very difficult time believing the "symbolic" nature of the bill. There is nothing about symbolism in the actual bill. "All laws shall be interpreted..." is pretty damn clear. If you take this language seriously (and if it's not to be taken seriously, WTF is it doing in the law?), one would have to require miscarriages to be reported, and investigations into the cause of death performed...just as would be done for the death of a newborn. "I'm sorry you just miscarried ma'am, but I'm going to need you to pee in this cup". This bill (and the proposed ballot initiative, which is even worse), would also, if taken seriously, open the door for the state to stick it's nose in places where it has the potential to do more harm than good. Say a pregnant woman gets diagnosed with cancer such that if she begun treatment immediately, she might have a good shot at a full recovery, but that treatment would endanger the life of the fetus, and waiting until the baby is born to begin treatment would decrease her chances of survival dramatically. Could happen. If you take the language of the bill or proposed amendment seriously, the state would have to appoint an advocate for the fetus, and a court would have to decide who's right to life should win. It's highly unlikely that the state would stick around to help deal with the aftermath of whatever decision they arrived at. Say even that she would rather delay treatment than have an abortion. Well, if she has small kids or a husband that would rather have her around for a lot longer, now it's even more thorny. It's conceivable a court might even rule that she have an abortion against her will.

The what-ifs can be played endlessly with this kind of thing, especially since it's so vague. When it's supporters/authors tell me it will or won't do a particular thing, I have a very hard time believing them, frankly, because the language doesn't mention anything about that. If they want me to believe them, they should write it in the bill.

No, not really. This bill won't prevent abortion.


The implications of this bill/amendment for my family are nothing short of dangerous.

Because of the implications, I believe the courts will toss it out as being void for vagueness.

Also, if this POS is on the ballot, that might attract more liberals and moderates to the polls. They recently tried this in Mississippi. The election went pretty bad for Republicans.

KantoSooner
3/2/2012, 04:31 PM
There will always be another state, or Canada, a Caribbean island, an old cruise ship moored 13 miles offshore from Houston or, if you have the money, Italy, to go to get an abortion if you need one.
It'll be inconvenient and put the procedure out of the reach of the truly poor. it's just a pity that some are so dedicated to minding their neighbors' business.

Wait, here's a thought! Would such laws have effect on federally registered Indian land? Whoo Hoo! would THAT be a brouhaha! Abortions in clinics set up next door to casinos! We're going downtown now! The baibul thumpers will have apoplexy.

SoonerLaw09
3/5/2012, 02:38 PM
There will always be another state, or Canada, a Caribbean island, an old cruise ship moored 13 miles offshore from Houston or, if you have the money, Italy, to go to get an abortion if you need one.
It'll be inconvenient and put the procedure out of the reach of the truly poor. it's just a pity that some are so dedicated to minding their neighbors' business.

Wait, here's a thought! Would such laws have effect on federally registered Indian land? Whoo Hoo! would THAT be a brouhaha! Abortions in clinics set up next door to casinos! We're going downtown now! The baibul thumpers will have apoplexy.

Yep, you just accurately described the utter moral corruption of the Indian tribes in this state. I don't care how many PR commercials they run, they've got no excuse for their actions. The poor preying on the poor. It's ridiculous.

SoonerLaw09
3/5/2012, 02:40 PM
Certainly shouldn't morally and/or legally, but sadly this happens every day.

As for the bill, I'm in the "I'm not a woman, so I should have no say in the matter" camp.

That's about as logical as saying "I'm not the murderer or rapist, so I should have no say in whether those things are wrong or not".

KantoSooner
3/5/2012, 02:48 PM
Yep, you just accurately described the utter moral corruption of the Indian tribes in this state. I don't care how many PR commercials they run, they've got no excuse for their actions. The poor preying on the poor. It's ridiculous.

What they've done with the money has, in the main, been an outstanding example of decent government. They've actually spent money on health care, roads, water etc. What a concept!
And to do that, as indians, through the sale of fire water to, and by running tricky games of chance to swindle the money off of, white people is nothing short of the highest form of irony.

SoonerLaw09
3/5/2012, 02:53 PM
What they've done with the money has, in the main, been an outstanding example of decent government. They've actually spent money on health care, roads, water etc. What a concept!

If only the lottery would do the same....


And to do that, as indians, through the sale of fire water to, and by running tricky games of chance to swindle the money off of, white people is nothing short of the highest form of irony.

It all becomes clear now...

StoopTroup
3/5/2012, 02:59 PM
It's funny that nearly wiping out an entire race isn't enough.

Leave the Indians alone. Every time they marry/procreate outside their race is causing them enough problems. Nobody forces people to play at the Casinos.

KantoSooner
3/5/2012, 03:33 PM
It's even funnier than that.
Here's a brief Indian Law Primer:

Indian Tribes derive their ability to ignore most state laws on their territory through treaty rights. The simple analysis, that escaped indians for a long time, is this: treaties are made between sovereign nations. Thus, anything having to do with sovereign 'nation-hood' not specifically negotiated away in a treaty is retained. The tribes are thus subordinate to the federal government but not completely equal to or related in any way to states.

The funny part about this is that it was the US government who insisted on making treaties. They could have written up contracts, hell, they could have simply told the indians to go take a flying leap. But they didn't. Our government wanted to make it look like they were negotiating in good faith and not simply stealing a continent away from its owners. So they made like legal beagles and insisted on making treaties...and now find themselves hoist on their own petards!

Then, for those of us who really like liberty, there's another whole layer of ironic amusement. That is that the tribes have played this legal status to great profit by providing the broader society the freedom to do what people obviously want to do but have been prevented from doing by socially activist state legislatures.

To watch hypocrisy, and better, self-righteous hypocrisy be done in by its own rules has to rank very, very high among pleasureable activities.

SoonerLaw09
3/5/2012, 04:09 PM
Since the Indians never believed they owned the land anyway, why were they so pissed?

StoopTroup
3/5/2012, 04:14 PM
Since the Indians never believed they owned the land anyway, why were they so pissed?

Because they don't believe you own it either.

KantoSooner
3/5/2012, 05:10 PM
That whole thingie about indians not 'owning' land needs to be looked at in the same way one looks at the phraseology of William Jefferson Clinton; that is to say, with a hearty grain of salt.
It may be true that most tribes had no concept of individual ownership of real property (though personal property was defintitely recognized), but they had very well developed ideas of tribal land. One demonstration of this would be what happened to trespassers on Comanche land. Hint to those who know not of the Comanche: it was painful and final.

And, even if these collective claims to land did not rise to the formality and precision of Anglo-american legal practice, there was a clear right to something like usufruct and it had been established through habit if by no other route.