Sign in to follow this  
nucklehead

Crazy in Alabama

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

3.1 million children die of undernutrition each year around the world (according to the site World Child Hunger Facts), yet these archaic thinking men in the United States are far more focused on determining what a women gets to do with her body, because of what exactly? Should these same people (and other pious lawmakers around the globe) whose argument that all life is sacred, be doing all they can to lessen that truly catastrophic number?

 

Maybe, just maybe they don't actually care about each and every baby born in their country at all, considering how many die from causes that are preventable like starvation, school shootings, murder, suicide, drug overdoses, and numerous other causes. Seemingly to them, it's solely about assuming and maintaining control, and pushing forth their religious values on people who don't share them.

 

This is about protecting the rights of life from being taken away by another. A person dying from starvation is not even remotely close to a person getting murdered, I’m surprised how many people try to compare the two. And on top of that they are creating law for there own state. How would one, from say Alabama, go about creating a law for the world to follow? If they had that power I’m sure they would try but it’s a bit of a ridiculous argument. 

 

This has zero to do with controlling rights. Anyone with a single once of logic can should be able to see that. It’s an emotional argument and not a factual one. Only 13% of Americans believe a women has a choice to abort up until child birth. There for 87% of people fall in the category that the fetus’ rights to live supersede the choice of the women at some point during the pregnancy. The ONLY different among the two groups is the timeframe on when the certain point is. Some people like thedestroyer believes it’s at 20 weeks others like myself believe it’s at heartbeat. And unless you are pro full term abortion, you also fall inline with same beliefs as the people you criticize. What makes you a bigger champion of women’s rights then some of those religious folk....a couple weeks?

 

And if you really want to bash religion, they tend to help 100x more for the people in need than everyone else combined.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

This is about protecting the rights of life from being taken away by another. A person dying from starvation is not even remotely close to a person getting murdered, I’m surprised how many people try to compare the two. And on top of that they are creating law for there own state. How would one, from say Alabama, go about creating a law for the world to follow? If they had that power I’m sure they would try but it’s a bit of a ridiculous argument. 

No it isn't, no matter how you try to wiggle the argument. You seemingly choose to skim over a response and then respond with all the points jumbled up in that brain of yours.

 

This is about control of a woman's body. Not the safety of a fertilized egg. Like I said, if these folks were so concerned, they would continue to show their support for children throughout their life. Yet, in the US many die from a plethora of causes.

 

Dying from starvation and being murdered ends up the same. With death. What's your point? To argue the semantics of suffering? Do you believe that a fetus in the womb feels the same pain as a child who hasn't eaten in a week? If you do......well clearly you do because it serves your narrative.

 

And regarding Alabama lawmakers creating a law for the whole world to follow, once again, try reading the whole statement before you click reply. I including lawmakers from other countries in brackets (who knows maybe they made it invisible to your eyes).

Quote

This has zero to do with controlling rights.

Incorrect.

Quote

Anyone with a single once of logic can should be able to see that.

Thinly veiled insult, a Forsberg standard.

Quote

It’s an emotional argument and not a factual one.

You don't get to choose how the other side of the debate views the argument. You, clearly, are arguing from an emotional standpoint, and others are not.

Quote

Only 13% of Americans believe a women has a choice to abort up until child birth. There for 87% of people fall in the category that the fetus’ rights to live supersede the choice of the women at some point during the pregnancy.

Please provide the source. And remember, it's 13%/87% of people polled, not Americans. Unless you think Ipsos Reid was able to poll all 331,000,000 of them.

Quote

The ONLY different among the two groups is the timeframe on when the certain point is.

Which timeframe? Up until childbirth? Some context would be great here.

Quote

Some people like thedestroyer believes it’s at 20 weeks others like myself believe it’s at heartbeat.

Great.

Quote

And unless you are pro full term abortion, you also fall inline with same beliefs as the people you criticize. What makes you a bigger champion of women’s rights then some of those religious folk....a couple weeks?

Pro full term abortion? Your need to generalize and label people is just so sad and reductive, and simplistic. Being pro-choice doesn't factually equal being pro-abortion. I get that it's an easy way to vilify people who don't agree with you, but it's false. I don't equate you being pro-life with being pro-kill all abortion doctors and women seeking one.

 

Most women who choose to have an abortion do so soon after finding out that they're pregnant, within the first trimester. The spectre of late-term abortions that yourself and others use as a go to in arguments, just isn't the norm at all.

 

Most likely you've never known anyone who has had one, and have no way to quantify the real-life issues surrounding the choice. I have, and the people who made that choice did so after a lot of thought and deliberation, and after the fact, they did feel pain and a sense of loss. However they had to make a very serious choice which would impact the rest of their lives. They had to because either way they would have to live with their choice, not some politician who couldn't give a rat's ass about them, until election time.

 

! believe in equal rights and am someone with an opinion based on experience and fact.

Quote

And if you really want to bash religion, they tend to help 100x more for the people in need than everyone else combined.

Read. I stated people pushing their religious values. That's what's happening.

 

Sure, some religions have associations that help people in need, and yet those same religions have been responsible for atrocities that affected the future of countries, and millions of lives to this day. Maybe get off the pulpit and look around once in a while.

Edited by PhillipBlunt
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I sympathize, but no it is not. It is a debate upon when a baby is a life, and no you don't have to be a doctor to have an opinion, and yes you can have a penis.

 

Abortion as a form birth control should not be allowed or free. It's careless destruction of life.

 

 

So define it. If you want to actually have a conversation and try to convince someone you're right on this subject you have to be able to define it. Why am qualified to define death but not life? Why can I define something complex like love but not life? The definition is in the dictionary.

 

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

 

A fetus falls under that definition.

You say sympathize but you dont. If you did you would actually take a moment and see why I and countless other women who have endured pregnancy loss are against this.

 

If this was actually about the rights of ALL unborn babies then women who have miscarriages and stillbirths would not be subjected to investigations which in itself is insenstive and horrific.  Miscarriages and stillbirths need to be treated with compassion and delicacy not with the fear that you will be going to jail because your much WANTED child died and some MAN decided you were responsible.

What about Women who need medical abortions and will be denied them. Women whose babies have already died or who would die during birth or who may live for a few short painful hours just to die anyways.

What about women who have had a missed miscarriage or have a etopic pregnancy?

To deny them of these procedures could cost them their lives.

Not all abortions are done because of people being careless sometimes a woman must make a horrible and painful devesting decision in order to save her own life or because her child would have no quality of life.

If this was just about women using abortions as birth control then they would just ban that. But that is not what is happening. They are banning abortions across the board no exceptions and this(or something similar)  is happening in 8 states.

Tell me again how this is NOT about controlling women??

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have ovaries, you don't have a say. Most of the counter opinions are from, you guessed it, men. Sit this one out, boys. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those states that are trying to outlaw abortion should actually be making it mandatory, for all men/boys over the age of 13 to have vasectomies.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, gurn said:

I think those states that are trying to outlaw abortion should actually be making it mandatory, for all men/boys over the age of 13 to have vasectomies.

Haha would like to hear the argument against this to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to set the time frame at such a ridiculously low level, hopefully you're ready to fund weekly pregnancy tests for every single woman in the state.  The alternative of treating them humanely is too much of an issue, so hopefully this is an acceptable compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

No it isn't, no matter how you try to wiggle the argument. You seemingly choose to skim over a response and then respond with all the points jumbled up in that brain of yours.

 

Your reading comprehension is terrible. I skimmed over nothing. I pointed out how flawed your argument is and backed it up. 

 

Quote

This is about control of a woman's body. Not the safety of a fertilized egg.

Unless you are for full term abortion you have the exact same views about the safety of the fetus. 

 

Quote

Like I said, if these folks were so concerned, they would continue to show their support for children throughout their life. Yet, in the US many die from a plethora of causes.

 

Again, I pointed out how flawed this argument is. They are not comparable. Protecting life from murder and keeping the world from starving are not the same thing. Flip it around, if being pro life now means you have to solve world starvation. Since pro choice is the opposite, wouldn’t being pro choice mean you’re against helping starving children?  How dumb does that argument sound. 

 

Quote

Dying from starvation and being murdered ends up the same. With death. What's your point?

Ones murder and ones not. How many years in jail does starvation get?  Only a fool would try to argue this point. 

 

Quote

 

To argue the semantics of suffering? Do you believe that a fetus in the womb feels the same pain as a child who hasn't eaten in a week? If you do......well clearly you do because it serves your narrative.

Fetus’ are proven to feel pain. :picard:

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/

 

 

Quote

And regarding Alabama lawmakers creating a law for the whole world to follow, once again, try reading the whole statement before you click reply. I including lawmakers from other countries in brackets (who knows maybe they made it invisible to your eyes).

Say that out loud again. Are all law makers pro life? How would one change the laws for others? I’m glad you put brackets in, it highlights how dumb of a statement it is. If law makers could make decisions for other jurisdictions then Kenney would have a pipeline going through your back yard. 

 

Quote

You don't get to choose how the other side of the debate views the argument. You, clearly, are arguing from an emotional standpoint, and others are not.

Please provide the source.

 

Enjoy. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

Quote

And remember, it's 13%/87% of people polled, not Americans. Unless you think Ipsos Reid was able to poll all 331,000,000 of them.

:picard: you clearly don’t understand statistics.

 

Quote

Which timeframe? Up until childbirth? Some context would be great here.

 

Here. I’ll explain it really clearly.

 

If you are pro choice under the belief that it’s women's body, women’s choice then you have to support that in all stages of the pregnancy.  it’s still the women’s body up until child birth. The fetus’ viability should have no impact on pro choices decisions since again it’s the women’s body at all stages. 

 

As soon as people start bringing the fetus’ viability into the conversation, timeframe becomes the only difference between their views and the pro life views. What’s the different between telling a woman at 20 weeks she can’t have an abortion vs telling her at 8 weeks. At the end of the day both views technically tell a woman what she can’t do, it’s just at different stages of the pregnancy. 

 

And as I pointed out with the source, since the majority people feel at “certain point” the fetus’ value supersede the women’s right, then the majority of people should also understand that this really has nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with when they feel that fetus has value. 

 

That “certain point” should be the entirety of the debate and not about controlling choices. 

 

Quote

Most women who choose to have an abortion do so soon after finding out that they're pregnant, within the first trimester. The spectre of late-term abortions that yourself and others use as a go to in arguments, just isn't the norm at all.

 

If you do one thing, answer this, while no it’s not the norm, would you support a women’s right to terminate a completely healthy baby at 36 weeks. 

 

Why or why not?

 

Quote

Most likely you've never known anyone who has had one, and have no way to quantify the real-life issues surrounding the choice. I have, and the people who made that choice did so after a lot of thought and deliberation, and after the fact, they did feel pain and a sense of loss.

I know plenty who have.  I know people on both ends of the spectrum. Some who have had multiple just because there free spirits and others who made the choice for financial school reasons. 

 

one thing you have to ask. If it’s just a clump of cells with no value. Why the sense of loss?  Seems like a lot of grey to allow personal “want” to determine who has value and who doesn’t. 

 

Quote

Sure, some religions have associations that help people in need, and yet those same religions have been responsible for atrocities that affected the future of countries, and millions of lives to this day. Maybe get off the pulpit and look around once in a while.

So lump everyone in the same grouping?  The majority of the world population is involved in Religion. When your talking billions of people there are going to be some people that abuse power doesn’t mean at its heart it’s evil. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Twilight Sparkle said:

If you don't have ovaries, you don't have a say. Most of the counter opinions are from, you guessed it, men. Sit this one out, boys. 

Terrible argument, and is always the counter. "Well you're a man so you can't have an opinion on: Abortions, Male Privilege, Wage Gap, etc..."

When WOMEN are using OUR tax dollars to fund their NON MEDICALLY NEEDED ABORTIONS. It is my business, and everyones business. When a life that can't fight for itself is dying for no reason other than irresponsibility, I do get an opinion, as does EVERYONE. This isn't a man vs woman topic, this is a discussion of when is it okay to abort a baby. 

It honestly just looks like most of you don't have an answer for the statistics. You base your arguments off of 1.3% of all cases, because you'd rather have an easy way out. Peoples sad ANECDOTAL stories are the extreme exception, not the rule. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gurn said:

I think those states that are trying to outlaw abortion should actually be making it mandatory, for all men/boys over the age of 13 to have vasectomies.

The irony. No one is asking these women to have unprotected sex. No one is asking the men to have unprotected sex. We, in Canada, actually provide condoms, and MANY forms of birth control FOR FREE, therefore nullifying the reason for having free abortions for any reason at any term. 

"bUt FiVeHoLe SoMe WoMeN nEeD aBoRtIoNs dUe To MeDiCaL rEaSoNs Or RaPe" 

Yes, and as stated, those options should be available IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY A QUALIFIED DOCTOR.

Telling men they should get vasectomies at 13 because women can get pregnant is a disgusting argument, which goes against the "my body, my choice" argument. That's like telling women to get clipped at 13, and no it is not the same as forcing people to get physically, and sexually responsible. Educate your damn kids you lazy ass parents instead of getting the Canadian tax payer to foot the bill for your crappy parenting. If your kid gets pregnant via random chance (1.3% chance) then yea, do what needs to be done, but other than that, quit making excuses on why murdering a life is okay. 

I sympathize for the lifes lost, the potential that will never be known, the possible cure for the incurable could have been aborted, because two fools decided skin on skin felt better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Terrible argument, and is always the counter. "Well you're a man so you can't have an opinion on: Abortions, Male Privilege, Wage Gap, etc..."

When WOMEN are using OUR tax dollars to fund their NON MEDICALLY NEEDED ABORTIONS. It is my business, and everyones business. When a life that can't fight for itself is dying for no reason other than irresponsibility, I do get an opinion, as does EVERYONE. This isn't a man vs woman topic, this is a discussion of when is it okay to abort a baby. 

It honestly just looks like most of you don't have an answer for the statistics. You base your arguments off of 1.3% of all cases, because you'd rather have an easy way out. Peoples sad ANECDOTAL stories are the extreme exception, not the rule. 

How this for your sad Ancedotal stories being the extreme exception.

1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. This is a fact! Do some research and you will see this. 1 in 4 women will lose a precious wanted baby...  

1 and 4 of these women who suffer through this loss  will be subjected to a investigation after every single one of these loses and women could possibly end up in jail because of a loss.

 

As I have pointed out we have had 3 loses ( TS is my husband). We suffer from recurrent pregnancy loss with unknown causes.  Recurrent pregnancy loss is actually alot more common then one thinks.

 

If we lived in Alabama or one of these other states we would have to PROVE that these recurrent loses occurred naturally but we only have a known cause for one of the miscarriages. If someone decided this was not good enough because we didn't have PROOF of a medical reason for our stillbirth or our 1st miscarriage then I could go to jail for losing babies we very much wanted.

 

This Fact alone (investigating miscarriages, not allowing medical intervention for etopic pregnancies) shows that what is happening in the states right now is not just about abortions because If it was they would not be going after women who have had loses. They would not be denying women the rights to medical inventions if needed.

 

Some of the states have even stated that they would not allow a termination of a etopic pregnancy and would transplant the embryo  to the uterus which is scientifically impossible and most likely result in women dying.

 

You can not look at all these facts and say that this is not a WAR against women because it clearly is.

 

They are not only taking a womens right to choose away they are also punishing her for a loss and even more scary potentially putting her life at risk.

This is Not about religion or abortions this is about controlling women.

You as a man just dont get it and I am not surprised.

Edited by AppleJack
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AppleJack said:

How this for your sad Ancedotal stories being the extreme exception.

1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. This is a fact! Do some research and you will see this. 1 in 4 women will lose a precious wanted baby...  

1 and 4 of these women who suffer through this loss  will be subjected to a investigation after every single one of these loses and women could possibly end up in jail because of a loss.

 

As I have pointed out we have had 3 loses ( TS is my husband). We suffer from recurrent pregnancy loss with unknown causes.  Recurrent pregnancy loss is actually alot more common then one thinks.

 

If we lived in Alabama or one of these other states we would have to PROVE that these recurrent loses occurred naturally but we only have a known cause for one of the miscarriages. If someone decided this was not good enough because we didn't have PROOF of a medical reason for our stillbirth or our 1st miscarriage then I could go to jail for losing babies we very much wanted.

 

This Fact alone (investigating miscarriages, not allowing medical intervention for etopic pregnancies) shows that what is happening in the states right now is not just about abortions because If it was they would not be going after women who have had loses. They would not be denying women the rights to medical inventions if needed.

 

Some of the states have even stated that they would not allow a termination of a etopic pregnancy and would transplant the embryo  to the uterus which is scientifically impossible and most likely result in women dying.

 

You can not look at all these facts and say that this is not a WAR against women because it clearly is.

 

They are not only taking a womens right to choose away they are also punishing her for a loss and even more scary potentially putting her life at risk.

This is Not about religion or abortions this is about controlling women.

You as a man just dont get it and I am not surprised.

That is truly sad, and I can only imagine how it feels to lose a child like that.

 

I don't know how many more times I can say it though. Thats a very small number of abortions... Medical reasons.

What happened in Alabama isn't right, thats for sure, but if abortions weren't abused then this wouldn't even be a problem.

 

Women should have the right to abortions, if they are necessary, not just because its your body your choice.

 

Your body, your choice. So choose to be responsible, and force the male to be responsible as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Props to Netflix and Disney for their stance on this issue:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/business/disney-bob-iger-abortion-georgia/index.html

 

Of course, Georgia is not Alabama, but regressive and repressive states deserve to be hit in the wallet. It's just too bad that Alabama and Missouri aren't big entertainment hubs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 4:24 PM, Twilight Sparkle said:

If you don't have ovaries, you don't have a say. Most of the counter opinions are from, you guessed it, men. Sit this one out, boys. 

Speaking of which......Texas gonna Texas.....:rolleyes:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/five-men-outlaw-abortion-in-a-texas-town-declaring-a-sanctuary-city-for-the-unborn/ar-AACPiNg?li=AAggFp5

Quote

 

Five men this week declared a small town in East Texas a “sanctuary city for the unborn,” commandeering the language of the movement for immigrant rights to counter the reproductive freedom of women.

There are no abortion clinics in Waskom, Tex., a city of about 2,200, which lies on the border with Louisiana. But the all-male, all-white city council decided unanimously on Tuesday that prohibiting abortion was necessary as a preventive measure.

 

The municipal prohibition, which plainly contradicts the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court, joins statewide bans on abortion sweeping the country in the wake of the solidification of a conservative majority on the nation’s top court. In Texas, abortion has already been banned after 20 weeks. Currently, a bill awaits the governor’s signature that would require doctors to treat “a child born alive after an abortion,” which happens rarely.

Supporters of the city ordinance say it is the first of its kind in the Lone Star State.

 

You can only see three of the nameplates of the councilors, but I'm certainly not surprised that there are a "Murph" and a "Rusty" casting votes.....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 4:24 PM, Twilight Sparkle said:

If you don't have ovaries, you don't have a say. Most of the counter opinions are from, you guessed it, men. Sit this one out, boys. 

Does that mean that people who aren't parents can't have a say in children's rights?  Non-pet owners for animal rights?

 

If the debate was only about women's bodies, you'd be right.  Like most of us here (CDC, USA, whatever), I am not against the majority of abortions, however, the pro-lifers foundation (protecting life) is pretty sound and backed by science, so I understand where they are coming from. 

 

Your comment got me to thinking, and I did some quick research.  Turns out, women appear to be trending (slightly) more towards pro-life, based Gallup poll history, and the numbers are typically pretty strong.  Maybe men are doing more of the talking on that side, as you suggest, but it's not like it is unrepresentative of their side.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A debate that goes on and on. It's a personal choice.  And depending on the situation, can be medical, social or religious.  I don't get why people get so obsessed to control what people choose.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.