Oklahoma Abortion Law

[Big Mac]

Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

[LoneMateria]

Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

The problem is there are religious nuts who might physically harm women for POSSIBLY having an abortion.

[Ultima22689]

Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

The problem is there are religious nuts who might physically harm women for POSSIBLY having an abortion.

Yep, that sounds about right.

[Big Mac]

Again I don't think its a deterrent.  Kids will hump no matter what.

The only problem is you can't tell how many DID NOT due to the embarrassment of going to an abortion clinic knowing you will be exposed.

The problem is there are religious nuts who might physically harm women for POSSIBLY having an abortion.

Blowback from that operation. Sad but true. I'm not condoning this shit, just trying to have the best face to it.

[Ninteen45]

Can I be the first to say I would laugh my face off if a Religious nut job serial killer starts going about killing people on the list and sending love letters to the doctors of the clinics, saying they "love the law" and mailing photos of their victims, posting how they screamed online and in said letters.

I'd want go to hell just to make sure the sick fucks who made that law know they'd have condemned so many women. A perfect case of "be careful what you'd wish for.", indeed.

[SSY]

I doubt it will make anyone more sexually responsible.  Look at abstinence only education (especially the religiously inspired type).  Its not effective at stopping teens from humping even if they make God hat them.  This is just a public way to try and embarrass  women to their families/friends.  Gossip will come from this and nothing more.  Imagine a woman who goes to the doctor and finds out she had a miscarriage.  Her family doesn't trust her for whatever reason and go to that site and find out someone had an abortion the last time she went to the doctor.  Shit can easily fly out of control whether or not she had an abortion.

I was undecided before reading that, this is a definite problem with the law (other than it not accomplishing anything useful at all). Though it is a sad day when we have to think about the actions of these morons when making laws. "What if some idiot gets the wrong end of the stick and kills someone?" is not a great basis to have to make laws on.

[LoneMateria]

Though it is a sad day when we have to think about the actions of these morons when making laws. "What if some idiot gets the wrong end of the stick and kills someone?" is not a great basis to have to make laws on.

Isn't it bad we have to factor in idiots?  The thing is I haven't heard of anyone killing an abortion doctor( or someone who had an abortion) who was not a religious extremist.  That by itself should throw up some red flags.  It might be a stretch to say (and I have no evidence to back this up) but i think this could be seen as a law that violates separation of church and state.  Other then being a useless law it only serves as muscle to religious groups who want to force their views on everyone.  I'd have to find evidence that this law was religiously motivated or passed for religious reasons but it would not surprise me the least if it were to come out.

[SSY]

The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

[Big Mac]

The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

Remember the book 1984? The Junior Anti-Sex League? The Party publicly condone their actions but privately let them vent their frustrations in order to keep them blind. What's to say that the powers that be aren't using this to do so?

[LoneMateria]

The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

Remember the book 1984? The Junior Anti-Sex League? The Party publicly condone their actions but privately let them vent their frustrations in order to keep them blind. What's to say that the powers that be aren't using this to do so?

1. I haven't read the book and 2. how does this apply to our current situation?

[Big Mac]

The fact it is published online is what gives it the sinister element, if the data was of use to academic researchers, then fine, collect it, at the patients discretion, and then give it to the academics, publishing online serves no end whatsoever, other than to whip up the self righteous into a foaming, frothy frenzy.

Remember the book 1984? The Junior Anti-Sex League? The Party publicly condone their actions but privately let them vent their frustrations in order to keep them blind. What's to say that the powers that be aren't using this to do so?

1. I haven't read the book and 2. how does this apply to our current situation?

Really?!? Read it, great book. The Junior Anti-Sex League used the frustration the the people felt subconciously against the Party to focus on an easy and universal scapegoat: Sex. Every healthy human feels the need to have it (okay asexuals do not, but that's not really the criteria here) so the Party used it to help create another rift with normal sexual relations. Sex that was merely for pleasure and not procreation was looked upon as Sexcrime (a lot of political terms used today were created by Orwell for the book). My point is that this shame process is used in a way to keep people in line politically by making sex a taboo and shameful subject so as to keep the sheep baaing at the party's great wisdom. Like I've said before, it really doesn't matter which party is in power, they both pull this kind of shit one way or another.

[LoneMateria]

Really?!? Read it, great book. The Junior Anti-Sex League used the frustration the the people felt subconciously against the Party to focus on an easy and universal scapegoat: Sex. Every healthy human feels the need to have it (okay asexuals do not, but that's not really the criteria here) so the Party used it to help create another rift with normal sexual relations. Sex that was merely for pleasure and not procreation was looked upon as Sexcrime (a lot of political terms used today were created by Orwell for the book). My point is that this shame process is used in a way to keep people in line politically by making sex a taboo and shameful subject so as to keep the sheep baaing at the party's great wisdom. Like I've said before, it really doesn't matter which party is in power, they both pull this kind of shit one way or another.

I'm still not sure how the situations are identical.  So are you saying because they shamed these people that they didn't focus on the situation at hand?  And are you saying that this is a good thing?

[Big Mac]

Really?!? Read it, great book. The Junior Anti-Sex League used the frustration the the people felt subconciously against the Party to focus on an easy and universal scapegoat: Sex. Every healthy human feels the need to have it (okay asexuals do not, but that's not really the criteria here) so the Party used it to help create another rift with normal sexual relations. Sex that was merely for pleasure and not procreation was looked upon as Sexcrime (a lot of political terms used today were created by Orwell for the book). My point is that this shame process is used in a way to keep people in line politically by making sex a taboo and shameful subject so as to keep the sheep baaing at the party's great wisdom. Like I've said before, it really doesn't matter which party is in power, they both pull this kind of shit one way or another.

I'm still not sure how the situations are identical.  So are you saying because they shamed these people that they didn't focus on the situation at hand?  And are you saying that this is a good thing?

No, I'm saying maybe these people aren't so bent on exposing these women so much for religious reasons as political. It works in many ways. By focusing the debate on this we can be distracted to how they spend billions of our tax dollars on shit. By giving people a distraction for and against this it prevents us from organizing and ousting them for someone better.

I'm just saying a consideration for why this is implemented. It may not be the reason you think!

[LoneMateria]

No, I'm saying maybe these people aren't so bent on exposing these women so much for religious reasons as political. It works in many ways. By focusing the debate on this we can be distracted to how they spend billions of our tax dollars on shit. By giving people a distraction for and against this it prevents us from organizing and ousting them for someone better.

I'm just saying a consideration for why this is implemented. It may not be the reason you think!

If it's politically motivated then chances are its meant to appease the religious right.  It still will have negative impact on families which are more religious.  This has the possibility of being a distraction but so does any other "high profile" decision made.  I take the skeptical approach here and don't assume that there might be a distraction until there is more evidence for it.  From my perspective this is religiously motivated in one way or another.  Either the person who passed it is passing it because of his religious views on the subject or he is doing it to cater to the religious right (a sort of compromise instead of outlawing it).

[Big Mac]

No, I'm saying maybe these people aren't so bent on exposing these women so much for religious reasons as political. It works in many ways. By focusing the debate on this we can be distracted to how they spend billions of our tax dollars on shit. By giving people a distraction for and against this it prevents us from organizing and ousting them for someone better.

I'm just saying a consideration for why this is implemented. It may not be the reason you think!

If it's politically motivated then chances are its meant to appease the religious right.  It still will have negative impact on families which are more religious.  This has the possibility of being a distraction but so does any other "high profile" decision made.  I take the skeptical approach here and don't assume that there might be a distraction until there is more evidence for it.  From my perspective this is religiously motivated in one way or another.  Either the person who passed it is passing it because of his religious views on the subject or he is doing it to cater to the religious right (a sort of compromise instead of outlawing it).

That's rather myopic in my opinion. Think about it. By keeping a tally of certain women who have had to make the difficult choice of terminating life. They now have plenty of ammo to silence an intelligent, opposing viewpoint with a rabble-rousing document of abortion.

Please don't take things like this on face value, there is probably a more ominous reason behind them.

By the way, HOOK 'EM HORNS!!! TAKE THAT OU, UT WINS!!!