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

[badger]

There apparently was quite the rally today at our state Capitol regarding this "personhood" bill:

Link

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]

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]

People like bright lines, and they think conception is a good one. Especially when it's "not my problem." Sorry, I got nuthin'....

[Soonerjeepman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

I just wanted to share this EDITED photo with you:



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]

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]

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]

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]

Sorry, I thought you were allowing me my beliefs.

And, yes, you're quite clear.

[AlboSooner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

which is why RvW will never fully satisfy anyone. It's a compromise.