Okla. senator wants ban on human fetu...

Okla. senator wants ban on human fetuses in food

There are 125 comments on the The Times-Tribune story from Jan 24, 2012, titled Okla. senator wants ban on human fetuses in food. In it, The Times-Tribune reports that:

A Republican state senator from Oklahoma City introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban the use of aborted human fetuses in food, despite conceding that he's unaware of any company using such a practice.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Times-Tribune.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Ocean56

AOL

#127 Feb 2, 2012
Fight For Life wrote:
Of course you don't care. I simply don't care what you think, hon.
Fine. I'll go on stating whatever I think even if you don't care. The fact is that YOU don't get to decide what other women or girls "should" do in the event that they are raped and have the added horror of a rape pregnancy forced on them.

If an impregnated rape victim wants to stay pregnant and give birth, that's her choice. If she wants to abort the rapist's offspring, that's also HER choice. Either way, it isn't YOUR choice, unless you are the impregnated rape victim.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#128 Feb 2, 2012
Fight For Life wrote:
<quoted text>
The baby should be born. As I'm sure you've heard before, you don't punish the child for the sins of the father. The baby can be given up for adoption, or if the woman has a good supportive family who will stand by her side and she decides to keep her child, then that's good as well.
The only time I think it's acceptable (and it's making me sick to even say it) is when the mothers life, or both lives are in danger. Emergency situations where a decision has to be made. Abortion "just because", no, never.
Okay good. Your position and your presumptions follow one another.

I really hate dealing with hypocrites who claim "abortion is murder" but then carve out an exception for rape victims.

Their REAL position is "pregnancy is punishment for sluts" but they don't want to make that argument in public.

Now, your end goal is "end all abortions". Honestly, that's the end goal of all sides of the debate. Even the pro-choice people aren't in favor of abortions.

Abortion is the worst possible solution to an avoidable problem.

So, the goal of BOTH sides should be to stop fighting each other and work on preventing unwanted pregnancies from happening.

But, that's can't happen and here's why:

The Conservatives run on a political platform of "anti-abortion". If someone had a solution which made abortion unnecessary the Conservatives would find a way to vote against it.

Abortion is a single issue trigger. A Conservative candidate can push through any policy he wants so long as he thumps the platform during an election year and claims to be pro-life.

Why on Earth would a Senator who had a captive voting block EVER do ANYTHING to make that voting block vanish? It would NEVER happen.

Both sides need to stop this useless fight over the last part of the process and get behind BETTER sex education, BETTER pre-natal care, BETTER adoption/foster care.

And understand this - Abortion is never going to go away. It's been around as long as medicine. It's mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath!(Against, by the way. That's a tidbit the pro-lifers fail to mention).

The number of abortions as a percentage of the population doesn't differ when abortion is illegal. They just become more dangerous procedures because they are done underground or by women at home.

Trying to end a procedure that's been around longer than medicine itself is futile. The best you can do is set up alternatives and advertise them.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#129 Feb 2, 2012
Sir William Ferrell wrote:
The worst part of it all is that the Liberals and pro abortion people would rather work hard to save woodpeckers and hootowls and dolphins over the life of another living human being.
Shameful indeed.
Well, I'm going to introduce you to a little thing called "math".

There are 9 BILLION people on the planet. One abortion isn't going to make humans go extinct.

Weigh the risk to humanity against the life. There is NO risk to humanity. There are children born every second. One more, one less - not going to make a difference.

If there are 100 owls and you are trying to tear up part of their extremely small habitat in order to make a bowling alley then you have to make an assessment.

Is yet another bowling alley more important than risking this species' extinction _forever_?

Why is it "Conservatives" have NO interest in "Conservation"?

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#130 Feb 2, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine. I'll go on stating whatever I think even if you don't care. The fact is that YOU don't get to decide what other women or girls "should" do in the event that they are raped and have the added horror of a rape pregnancy forced on them.
If an impregnated rape victim wants to stay pregnant and give birth, that's her choice. If she wants to abort the rapist's offspring, that's also HER choice. Either way, it isn't YOUR choice, unless you are the impregnated rape victim.
Key point here.

There isn't a problem with someone deciding what someone else "should" do.

Fight for Life has every right to decide what someone else "should" do. That's FFL's opinion on the matter.

Someone else has just as much right to decide what the person "should" do and be in complete opposition to FFL.

The issue is trying to force someone to do what you think is right.

FFL's position is at least consistent internally which is a HUGE step up for other pro-lifers who aren't even internally consistent.

The problem is trying to base an argument on person opinion of what is right or wrong. It's a useless debate, neither side will ever change the other's mind.

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#131 Feb 2, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay good. Your position and your presumptions follow one another.
I really hate dealing with hypocrites who claim "abortion is murder" but then carve out an exception for rape victims.
Their REAL position is "pregnancy is punishment for sluts" but they don't want to make that argument in public.
Now, your end goal is "end all abortions". Honestly, that's the end goal of all sides of the debate. Even the pro-choice people aren't in favor of abortions.
Abortion is the worst possible solution to an avoidable problem.
So, the goal of BOTH sides should be to stop fighting each other and work on preventing unwanted pregnancies from happening.
But, that's can't happen and here's why:
The Conservatives run on a political platform of "anti-abortion". If someone had a solution which made abortion unnecessary the Conservatives would find a way to vote against it.
Abortion is a single issue trigger. A Conservative candidate can push through any policy he wants so long as he thumps the platform during an election year and claims to be pro-life.
Why on Earth would a Senator who had a captive voting block EVER do ANYTHING to make that voting block vanish? It would NEVER happen.
Both sides need to stop this useless fight over the last part of the process and get behind BETTER sex education, BETTER pre-natal care, BETTER adoption/foster care.
And understand this - Abortion is never going to go away. It's been around as long as medicine. It's mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath!(Against, by the way. That's a tidbit the pro-lifers fail to mention).
The number of abortions as a percentage of the population doesn't differ when abortion is illegal. They just become more dangerous procedures because they are done underground or by women at home.
Trying to end a procedure that's been around longer than medicine itself is futile. The best you can do is set up alternatives and advertise them.
Great post!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oklahoma Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Oklahoma mental health agency to cut $75 millio... Thu Catsy Ramsey 2
News U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' meeting wi... Thu 101010twoeight 1
News Oklahoma Makes Cuts To Social Service Agencies Thu yep 1
News Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs - Is Oklahom... Oct 17 thatsallthereis 1
News Rep. Steve Russell Seeking Solutions To Prevent... Oct 15 Thomas 4
News Oklahoma Health Officials Warn Of Dire Budget C... Oct 8 unconstitutional 1
News Oklahoma Receives $21 Million Grant For Childre... Oct 6 unlikely 1
More from around the web