(05-22-2016, 10:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said early when SSF and I were having a rational comment on the matter: I am not all or nothing on abortions. You could even take it back a step further than the morning after pill and say I must be against contraception. The morning after pill is a viable compromise.

Once again you are letting your personal opinion on the matter cloud the function that OK is employing. If the majority of their state wants abortions to be illegal then the majority rules. Someone that doesn't want the child growing inside them may be burdened with the inconvenience of travelling out of state to have it legally destroyed. 

As to adoption: we have made inquiries. I have a co-worker that has 2. My youngest just left the nest and we have adequate resources to provide a loving safe environment. The only think stopping me from proceeding is age.  

(05-22-2016, 10:36 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You know I get the original angle you were coming from: laws like these are how pro-life proponents have to challenge Roe v Wade, a decision they find to be immoral and wrong. I get it. 

Likewise, I get the other argument: this is a matter of individual choice. As such, when the will of majority is forced on the minority at the costs of their rights, it's in direct violation to a principle of our Constitution: majority rule with minority rights. So while the majority will rule in a democracy, a democracy such as ours that respects the rights of the minority must then act when we have legislation that tries to take those rights away. When the majority votes in November, no rights will be inherently taken away.


Is pot the same as abortions? No. Does legalizing both mean giving citizens the freedom of choice and ownership of their bodies? Yes.

(05-22-2016, 10:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This may be a better discussion for another thread, but most of the adoption processes I have seen are cost prohibitive as well. At least for us. We're not at a point where we would be able to financially support a child, bit even beyond that, the cost for adoption is high. Again, just my observations. We have looked into it because a natural child for us would be genetically *****.

(05-22-2016, 10:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is quite to opposite here (or at least initial inquiries have indicated as such).There is virtually no cost to adopt and any Attorney fees are reimbursed by the state. In fact you receive a monthly stipend to assist in covering the cost of rearing the child.

(05-22-2016, 11:35 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Someone lied to you.

(05-22-2016, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What is your experience with the KY Fostering and adoption services?

(05-22-2016, 11:45 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: None. Ohio is expensive as shit though.

I don't pay enough attention to where you (or anyone else on these boards for that matter) are from. And the mobile version doesn't have the little things like 'location' displayed.

(05-22-2016, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No version has the location anymore.

I have no idea why states would make adoptions so expensive. They actually save money by placing kids in Foster and adoptive homes. Perhaps I'll start a thread is Klotsch. 

(05-22-2016, 01:22 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I find abortion discussions exhausting and pointless - 

(05-22-2016, 10:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said early when SSF and I were having a rational comment on the matter: I am not all or nothing on abortions. You could even take it back a step further than the morning after pill and say I must be against contraception. The morning after pill is a viable compromise.

Once again you are letting your personal opinion on the matter cloud the function that OK is employing. If the majority of their state wants abortions to be illegal then the majority rules. Someone that doesn't want the child growing inside them may be burdened with the inconvenience of travelling out of state to have it legally destroyed. 

As to adoption: we have made inquiries. I have a co-worker that has 2. My youngest just left the nest and we have adequate resources to provide a loving safe environment. The only think stopping me from proceeding is age.  
 
 

(05-22-2016, 03:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Colorado had a vote. 1.3million citizens voted to give people the ability to chose if they want to use marijuana.

If OK had a vote like that for this abortion law and it passed i would have a lot less of a problem about it. That would be different than 16 senators telling a whole state they no longer get to chose.

(05-22-2016, 10:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And Rights is what it all comes down to. If the majority of Oklahomans feel that destroying a healthy fetus is not a right; then the minority cannot over-rule by saying Yes it is. 

If SCOTUS repealed Roe v. Wade tomorrow, no one's rights would be taken away; however, a healthy fetus would now have the right to live. 

(05-22-2016, 07:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We should have a straight up vote state by state as let them all do as they wish.   Get rid of the fed control over the issue.  

Really with the morning after pill there is no need for legal abortions anyway.    I believe you get 72 hours to use them after sex so there is no reason why anyone who didn't want kids could sort some out.    

The current situation needs adjusted.   It's set up now to basically thin out the poor and minorities.   And that's just wrong.

(05-23-2016, 11:03 AM)Griever Wrote: what is it with conservatives wanting to take peoples rights away?

(05-23-2016, 11:49 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Because the rights of a batch of cells (or even a person in a vegetative state) that has zero cognitive thought is more important than the health and financial well being (in the case of vegetables) of those of us who have things to worry about.

(05-23-2016, 12:07 PM)Griever Wrote: i forget they see a batch of cells as an actual human, instead of a parasite living off its host for 9 months

(05-22-2016, 10:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And Rights is what it all comes down to. If the majority of Oklahomans feel that destroying a healthy fetus is not a right; then the minority cannot over-rule by saying Yes it is. 

If SCOTUS repealed Roe v. Wade tomorrow, no one's rights would be taken away; however, a healthy fetus would now have the right to live. 

(05-23-2016, 09:58 PM)GMDino Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 09:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: