Oklahoma Legislature passes bill criminalizing abortion

[*bfine32*]

If a State cannot go against Federal Law then why is marijuana legal in Colorado?

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 07:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is not a person here that likes the idea of abortion. I can say that with a confidence, but if anyone would like to contradict that, feel free. Anyway, my point is that making abortion illegal has shown to put more lives at risk by creating a black market system that is unregulated. If we want to focus on reducing the number of abortions, and all of us should, instead of favoring legislation like this we should be pushing our lawmakers to improve sex education, to make reproductive health more accessible and affordable, to make contraceptives more easily accessed, and to help provide better services to new and expecting mothers/families so that they can support a child without having to decide between feeding themselves or their child.

Abortion is a problem, but it's a laceration that needs stitches. Making it illegal is just putting a dressing on it and hoping it will stop on its own.

If nobody likes the idea of abortion then why are there about 1 million each year in the U.S. Guess what else might increase all those good things you said? Taking away the legal option to abort a child. 

The absolute worst excuse for abortion is: If it is illegal folks are going to do it anyway. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2016, 01:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not all or nothing on abortion either; however, too often legitimate debates are dismissed by the liberal because of religion. "He ignored science because of religion". When in actuallity those those debate the fact that life starts at conception are ignoring science.

We've been down this road before and it just isn't true.

Genesis 2:7  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

According to The Holy Bible, that is when human life started.  Conception is when a genetically distinct human begins from two living cells.  If either of those cells isn't alive a new genetically distinct human will not form.  If a single cell is alive then it contains life; an otherworldly force (for lack of a better word) only your Creator can imbue into an inanimate object to make it an animated being.  Life is transferred from one generation to another at conception, it does not start at conception, human life started in Genesis 2:7.  Life is like a fire which cannot be restarted once it goes out and only a divine Creator has the ability to "start" life.  There are only two exceptions; the conception of Jesus and his resurrection. That is, if you believe in the Creation narrative of The Holy Bible.  Do you believe Creation narrative of The Holy Bible?

The chain of every human life alive today can be traced back, unbroken, to Adam.  What happened to that chain if it was broken by death or infertility?  There are no further descendants, the chain ends.

Edited to add: The life force in a single celled organism is every bit as miraculous as the life force in a fully formed, multicellular adult human. If you believe in the sanctity of life.

[Benton]

(05-20-2016, 08:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a State cannot go against Federal Law then why is marijuana legal in Colorado?

Under federal law it's still illegal. Just nobody is enforcing the federal law.

http://www.newsweek.com/conflict-between-federal-and-state-marijuana-laws-claims-victim-345099

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 08:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We've been down this road before and it just isn't true.

We have and the fact that you dispute life begins at conception puts you in the minority; but you are welcome to believe as you will. Bottom line is life must begin before it is aborted; as Websters defines it as causing death, Anything before that is just folks splitting hair to try and distort the point.

If folks are pro choice that's something they have to justify to themselves and others; but distorting the science of life is a feeble justification.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 08:40 PM)Benton Wrote: Under federal law it's still illegal. Just nobody is enforcing the federal law.

http://www.newsweek.com/conflict-between-federal-and-state-marijuana-laws-claims-victim-345099

I knew this. It was to refute the claim that Oklahoma "cannot" do this. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2016, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If nobody likes the idea of abortion then why are there about 1 million each year in the U.S. Guess what else might increase all those good things you said? Taking away the legal option to abort a child. 

The absolute worst excuse for abortion is: If it is illegal folks are going to do it anyway. 

And what percentage of those women getting an abortion do you think actually wanted to get an abortion?

How would taking away the legal option to abort do any of those things I mentioned? Can you provide the logical framework where that happens with evidence to support it would occur based on current U.S. politics?

Lastly, it is a poor excuse for anything, unfortunately it is true. Kind of like gun control as well, criminals will continue to buy illegal/unlicensed firearms, are you willing to say that is a poor excuse for not implementing gun control to limit types of firearms or to license them? You have to get at the root of the problem to implement real change, and making abortion illegal is just a surface solution, kind of like gun control at the consumer level is a surface solution to our firearms related woes in this country.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 08:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And what percentage of those women getting an abortion do you think actually wanted to get an abortion?

I would say the vast majority, Are you suggesting someone is forcing them? 

[GMDino]

(05-20-2016, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I knew this. It was to refute the claim that Oklahoma "cannot" do this. 

Not smoking marijuana isn't a constitutional right.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2016, 08:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would say the vast majority, Are you suggesting someone is forcing them? 

I am suggesting the vast majority are in a position, whether through persuasion or circumstances, where they feel it is their only option.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2016, 08:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We have and the fact that you dispute life begins at conception puts you in the minority; but you are welcome to believe as you will. Bottom line is life must begin before it is aborted; as Websters defines it as causing death, Anything before that is just folks splitting hair to try and distort the point.

If folks are pro choice that's something they have to justify to themselves and others; but distorting the science of life is a feeble justification.  

I just showed you where the Bible disputes it.  You believe the Bible, right?

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 08:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am suggesting the vast majority are in a position, whether through persuasion or circumstances, where they feel it is their only option.

Suggest all you want; that doesn't mean it holds water. I could be wrong here but I believe the head of PP herself said she aborted her last child just because. I would say this disputes the "nobody like the idea". Many love the thought of that safety blanket.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 08:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not smoking marijuana isn't a constitutional right.

Did that sentence make sense in your head?

[GMDino]

(05-20-2016, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did that sentence make sense in your head?

You compared laws against marijuana to abortion.... if you can manage those mental acrobats in your head you can figure out what that sentence means.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 08:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I just showed you where the Bible disputes it.  You believe the Bible, right?

No you didn't. It pretty much coined the term conception.

Yes, I do

So you agree something has to be alive before it can be aborted? 

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 08:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: You compared laws against marijuana to abortion.... if you can manage those mental acrobats in your head you can figure out what that sentence means.

Nope. I provided a state laws that is contrary to Federal. 

Acrobats are in full force and that sentence still makes no sense

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2016, 08:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No you didn't. It pretty much coined the term conception.

Yes, I do

Sp ypu agree something has to be alive before it can be aborted? 

Yes, I do agree a fetus has to be alive before it is aborted.  I never disputed a fetus is alive.  However, if I am to believe the Bible then God created "life," not humans.

Who coined what phrase doesn't really matter.  Who can create life?  Only God.  He created life during Creation as told by Genesis.  The cells involved during conception are already animated with the life He created during Genesis 2:7.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2016, 08:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Suggest all you want; that doesn't mean it holds water. I could be wrong here but I believe the head of PP herself said she aborted her last child just because. I would say this disputes the "nobody like the idea". Many love the thought of that safety blanket.

Oh, I am sorry, I didn't realize you were arguing against something I didn't say. I did specify here in my statement for a reason. There are sick people in the world. There is a reason I said vast majority as well.

And while my knowledge of this is all based on experience and therefore anecdotal, I am confident in saying I guarantee that the vast majority of women that have an abortion feel that it is their only option at the time and would rather not have to go through it. But that doesn't fit the myth of the morally bankrupt trollop characterization of women that seek abortion services, so I don't expect everyone to accept that.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2016, 09:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope. I provided a state laws that is contrary to Federal. 

Acrobats are in full force and that sentence still makes no sense

Except marijuana criminalization isn't in the Constitution. The basis of federal law keeping abortion illegal is the Constitution. Have any examples of state law contradicting the Constitution and it holding up?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2016, 01:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When in actuallity those those debate the fact that life starts at conception are ignoring science.

Are gametes alive?

Yes or No.

Yes.

If something is alive does it contain life?

Yes or No.

Yes.

If something is already alive and it is alive because it already contains life can you reasonably claim life starts where life already exists?

Yes or No.

No.

So where did life start?

Genesis 2:7 when God breathed life into dust.  If you believe The Holy Bible.