This seems typical of Okie Dems duplicity on the abortion issue. They try to tell constituents they're pro-life. But their record at the state capitol suggest otherwise.
ok so can I expect a story on moral values later (i.e. pay to play)?
i'm waiting
oh and did i miss it or did hiett not say who he was voting for?
Do you have the text of the bill- were there any exceptions?
The Pro-coathanger tribe in Oklahoma kills me. The position that wimmens should know their place, and should be denied equal access for medical procedures hinges on the belief that the title to the womb does not belong to the the possessor of the womb; it belongs to old white guys like the Talibangelicals of Falwell, Dobson and Robertson.
Can we repeal the wimmens right to vote here in Oklahoma too, or is that not a states rights issue?
Damn big Gubmint and activist judges shouldn't be tellin' us Okies how to treat our wimmens, 'cause we know what's best for our little ladies.
Oilfieldguy, your Democrat-trailer-park-trash-on-meth rhetoric seeks to obfuscate the issue with low-brow sophistry.
Those of us with brains know better.
How about laying off the Huffington Post crack pipe for a sec and actually looking into the issue at hand here? Partial birth abortion is horrific. Askins declined to do anything about it.
Pro-life individuals cross many cultural boundaries, but their moral stance comes from a deep intellectual and spiritual tradition that tells us abortion is one of the root causes of a cultural crisis -- a degradation of human relationships and one of the causes of familial breakdown in our society.
"If man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be. Not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners." ~C.S. Lewis
Your flippant and ignorant and dull-witted response, oilfieldguy, tells me just about everything I need to know about your heartfelt "commitment" to so-called "progressive" causes (progressing toward what, exactly, people like you will never tell us).
SoonerMan,
I chuckle at the thought of wingnuts intoxicated on rightard kool aide staggering about in the belief they are intellectually superior to the crack pipe huffing trailer trash labels they pin on those who disagree.
I too, contrary to your assumption, have looked long and hard at the issue of reproductive rights, and feel it is a choice between a woman, who has the right to control her body, and her doctor.
Is it murder? Do we execute murderers and those that hire them? Is it only okay for rape and incest? Does this mean the only time it is okay to murder an inoccent baby is when the innocent baby is the victim of a crime?
These are the rubs one encounters when one attempts to legislate "a cultural crisis -- a degradation of human relationships and one of the causes of familial breakdown in our society." Y'know, like prohibition. It made outlaws rich and corruption ran rampant.
This is why the pro-life name is a misnomer. Pro-coathanger is spot on, because this is the result of eliminating reproductive rights for females. Women bleeding to death in back alleys surely runs counter to your "deep intellectual and spiritual tradition."
As for being a "progressive" it seems like a dodge 'cause rightards have made liberal a bad word. Jesus was a liberal, I'm told. I prefer more rights, not less. Open government and private citizens. And a balanced budget, you know, like Clinton.
I hope I was helpful in educating you SoonerMan, and kudos for getting up on your hind legs like that. You must've seen the big kids do that on the playground.
Sorry about that snark, I couldn't resist, after all those mean ol' names you called me. BTW, we don't do drugs in the oilfield, they test for that.
Damn Gubmint.
Hey, oilfieldguy, looks like I got under your skin! Good.
As for the rest of it, what you wrote looks like classic Democrat rhetoric on the issue to me, and I'm too sleepy this morning to want to perform a postmodern deconstructionist textual reading of it.
But the bottom line is, yes, we can legislate morality. We do it all the time -- it's why we have the death penalty, but also lesser penalties for manslaughter, etc.
And Jesus wasn't a liberal -- nice try, though. I'm truly heartened that you acknowledge those who call themselves "progressives" are weak-kneed wussies who won't own up to being liberals.
Jesus wasn't a conservative either, incidentally. But He is saddened that we are on the precipice of Brave New World.
Don't flatter yourself by thinking you got under my skin. I did notice your usage of the wingnut phrase "Democrat" adopted because "Democratic" sounded too, well, "Democratic".
Dismissing my valid points as rhetoric does not constitute an address.
Is abortion murder?
If not, why not?
Do you advocate the death penalty for murderers?
If not, why not?
Do you allow the exception for cases of rape and incest?
If not, are you in favor of forcing a woman to give birth to the child of her rapist?
If so, and you truly believe abortion is murder, do you feel murdering innocent babies is okay only if they are victims of a crime?
These are "real-world" issues, and not empty rhetoric, and dismissing them as such merely demonstrates your "pound the table" technique when you can't "pound the facts."
Do not misunderstand me, SoonerMan, I absolutely understand your opposition to this issue on moral grounds. Where we part company is when you and your ilk try to impose your beliefs on others, resulting in the issues I have raised.
If you do respond again, please refrain from your ad hominem attacks, and try to answer the questions I have raised about your position.
Thanks,
OFG
Still no answer. Hmmm, I can hear the jeopardy music from here...
and crickets.
Oilfieldguy, there is a point at which having any sort of dialogue with those mired in the miasma of culturally Marxist (that's a very specific term, not a "pinko-commie" bait), postmodern deconstructionist funk only taints one's own spirit. Do not take my silence for assent. There are lots of things I would like to say about your posts that would satisfy spleen-venting urges, but would accomplish zero and would be absolutely un-Christlike in their tone. So sometimes, in the anonymous heat of the blogosphere, it's better just to keep one's own counsel and leave it at that, wouldn't you agree?
SoonerMan,
I am interested not at all in spleen-venting rants, nor your proclivity to use large and shiny words. I merely ask very real questions regarding the imposition of ones morality on someone else through legislation.
To draft legislation to fit your morals, you need to answer the questions I have outlined. So far, you have failed. My intent is not to enrage, and I asked you politely to stick to the questions and refrain from ad-hominem attacks.
Do not weave and bob and duck and cover and cut and run.
Answer the questions.
I will not answer your questions, you are not an Inquisitor, and I take the topic too personally to engage in a civil discussion about it with those interested only in sophistry. An abortionist tried to talk my own mother into aborting me when she conceived me out of wedlock as a teenager. Were it not for her moral fortitude, I would not exist. Let's leave it at that.
Commenting by HaloScan
