Anti-abortion groups wants Personhood bill brought to Oklahoma House floor

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
25,445
14,967
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#1
A group of ministers and anti-abortion advocates are calling today for the Oklahoma House to bring a Personhood vote to the Oklahoma House floor.

Today the House approved a non-binding resolution that grants personhood rights at "all stages of human development"

Kevin Calvey of Oklahomans for Life called the resolution a "cop-out" and says anti-abortion House members plan to force a vote to bring a personhood bill to the floor for consideration. He also said that any procedural vote against such a move will be considered a vote in support of abortion

House Republicans have already privately voted not to consider the personhood bill on the floor.

Oponents of the personhood bill have asked questions such as
Can you claim a fetus as a dependent on your tax returns
Can you use the car pool lane if you are pregnant with twins
Can you force your ex spouse to pay for 18years and 9 months of child support
Can a person buy beer at 20 years and 3 months of age
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,964
17,544
1,743
#2
Oponents of the personhood bill have asked questions such as

Can you claim a fetus as a dependent on your tax returns
Can you use the car pool lane if you are pregnant with twins
Can you force your ex spouse to pay for 18years and 9 months of child support
Can a person buy beer at 20 years and 3 months of age
These questions are nothing more than noise to distract from the bigger issue that can be addressed within the law.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,964
17,544
1,743
#6
Main reason? There are no provisions in the bill for cases of rape or incest and I don't believe a zygote is a human being.
Depends on your definition of a "human being" which there doesn't seem to be a consistant law, rule or definition addressing this? This law would do exactly that.

In regards to rape and incest you can always make amendments to the bill.

The zygote is most definitly alive and human. Unless you believe it is dead and non-human.
 

Philranger

Territorial Marshal
Oct 6, 2010
7,785
6,803
743
Owasso
#7
Depends on your definition of a "human being" which there doesn't seem to be a consistant law, rule or definition addressing this? This law would do exactly that.

In regards to rape and incest you can always make amendments to the bill.

The zygote is most definitly alive and human. Unless you believe it is dead and non-human.
And yet it got through the senate and nobody considered that.

A zygote is alive in the same way an amoeba is alive. That does not make it a human being. This bill is also begging for somebody to sue the state over it. Any idea how much that will cost for it to ultimately be shot down by the supreme court?

Missouri passed a similar bill, although there was language in it that said they would defer to the opinions of the court. No such language in this bill.
 

OSU_CC

Territorial Marshal
Dec 4, 2010
6,089
2,350
743
#8
And yet it got through the senate and nobody considered that.

A zygote is alive in the same way an amoeba is alive. That does not make it a human being. This bill is also begging for somebody to sue the state over it. Any idea how much that will cost for it to ultimately be shot down by the supreme court?

Missouri passed a similar bill, although there was language in it that said they would defer to the opinions of the court. No such language in this bill.
1st Bold: Correct! Amoeba's are indeed alive. Of course, they are unicellular organisms and not human beings.

2nd Bold: Not anymore than it will cost to shoot down ObamaCare. What is constitutionally wrong about defining when human life begins?

A zygote is just part of the process of the birth of (in this case) a child.

Do we say a child is not alive because it is part of the process of being an adult? How about a teenager? How about a fetus?

A zygote is the beginning of life for many living things and in this case...humans.
As far as rape and incest go...that is something to be considered but that doesn't change the fact of when a human life begins.
 

OSU_CC

Territorial Marshal
Dec 4, 2010
6,089
2,350
743
#9
Oponents of the personhood bill have asked questions such as
Can you claim a fetus as a dependent on your tax returns
Can you use the car pool lane if you are pregnant with twins
Can you force your ex spouse to pay for 18years and 9 months of child support
Can a person buy beer at 20 years and 3 months of age
Birth of a child is when we, as a society, have decided to track "age". I don't see that changing.

However, protection for the unprotected is always important to me and right now there have been millions of human lives being taken away because of abortion. That concerns me.

Just as I feel for rape victims, I feel for the unborn children whose lives are ended prematurely.

As for rape and incest scenarios, I feel that we shouldn't shy away from these problems and situations because of "touchy" subjects like that. I feel like there is a solution out there for "special situations" but that we shouldn't accept so many unnecessary deaths because we don't want to find a solution to the few "special situations" that may occur.
 

Philranger

Territorial Marshal
Oct 6, 2010
7,785
6,803
743
Owasso
#10
1st Bold: Correct! Amoeba's are indeed alive. Of course, they are unicellular organisms and not human beings.

2nd Bold: Not anymore than it will cost to shoot down ObamaCare. What is constitutionally wrong about defining when human life begins?

A zygote is just part of the process of the birth of (in this case) a child.

Do we say a child is not alive because it is part of the process of being an adult? How about a teenager? How about a fetus?

A zygote is the beginning of life for many living things and in this case...humans.
As far as rape and incest go...that is something to be considered but that doesn't change the fact of when a human life begins.
I still don't think you get it. Zygotes may develop into human beings. They may fail. A zygote itself is not a human being (although it certainly could be). What happens to a zygote that doesn't implant itself in the uterine wall? I guess that's accidental homicide is it not?

Considered!? Considered!? I know a girl who was raped as a teenager and became pregnant. I guarantee and she has said more than once that she would have killed herself rather than deliver the baby.
 

naranjaynegro

Territorial Marshal
Oct 20, 2003
7,145
1,209
1,743
58
Houston area
Visit site
#11
I wonder if pro-choice folks would go for the idea of safe, legal and truly rare abortions that did away with the concept of convenience and based it solely on the concept of a savings a woman's life / rape / incest. Limiting it to the first trimester for rape/incest.

I also tend to think that it is probably likely that doctor's can be found that would diagnose a hangnail a "health" issue for a woman and thus the need for an abortion.

The pro-choice side harps about women's rights....but it's really about convenience.
 

PokealypseNow

You Can Dere-Lick My Footballs, Cap-E-Tan
Oct 15, 2008
6,844
6,232
743
New to KCMO
WillPhillips.org
#13
So, I guess that means identical twins only count as one person between the two of them, seeing as how they started out as just a single zygote and all.

So, are they just going to split their social security and other tax payments, or how does that work?

I hope they don't make enough combined to pole vault them into an unbearable tax bracket.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
23,089
29,894
1,743
Australia
#14
So, I guess that means identical twins only count as one person between the two of them, seeing as how they started out as just a single zygote and all.

So, are they just going to split their social security and other tax payments, or how does that work?

I hope they don't make enough combined to pole vault them into an unbearable tax bracket.
Stop, all of these concerns are just noise. Pass the bill because of the bigger issue then we can worry about all the other effects.

-Cimarron, and Pelosi
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,014
1,999
743
Where else but Stillwater
#16

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,014
1,999
743
Where else but Stillwater
#17
The state house passed personhood but only in resolution form. Rep. Cory Williams of Stillwater was a brave Democrat to speak out against it. He thinks the state should be more concerned about being pro life by helping people with disabilities. However, I would suspect plenty of Republicans would strongly think that it amounts to liberal nonsense to think that it's the state's responsibility to do such a thing.. http://www.stwnewspress.com/local/x1521923088/Oklahoma-House-passes-personhood-resolution
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,964
17,544
1,743
#19
And yet it got through the senate and nobody considered that.

A zygote is alive in the same way an amoeba is alive. That does not make it a human being. This bill is also begging for somebody to sue the state over it. Any idea how much that will cost for it to ultimately be shot down by the supreme court?

Missouri passed a similar bill, although there was language in it that said they would defer to the opinions of the court. No such language in this bill.
They had every option to consider it, republicans and democrats alike.

An amoeba is an amoeba a human is a human. That's a fact. What constitutes a definition of a "human" isn't up for debate. What defines a "being" is debatable.

So you've already decided it's unconstitutional?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,964
17,544
1,743
#20
Stop, all of these concerns are just noise. Pass the bill because of the bigger issue then we can worry about all the other effects.

-Cimarron, and Pelosi
That isn't what I said steross. And you should know better. Please point out where I said the bill should be passed. In fact, I quote..

"Not saying I'm for or against it as I haven't read it"

Care to weigh in why you would suggest I said something I clearly didn't say?