Sign in to follow this  
nucklehead

Crazy in Alabama

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Kushman said:

You hit the nail on the head. The amount of outrage I'm seeing on social media is mostly a result of the pro-life position being completely mischaracterized. 

 

This isn't about trying to control women's bodies, this is about protecting the lives of the unborn. Hard to argue that a baby in the womb is just a clump of cells after 10 weeks.

Using rare examples of rape to try and justify abortions is also dishonest. Rape/incest make up something like 1.5% of abortions, yet it's put out there like every other other abortion is a result of said heinous crime. I wouldn't be opposed to a rape / incest clause that allows for abortions in these rare cases. (Although these laws aren't even banning abortions... In the case of rape or incest, an abortion could still be performed, just not after a given time)

 

Late term abortions being legalized (new York just allowed abortions up to 9 months!) is a far more outrageous issue than banning abortions after 8-10 weeks. 

 

1) Disappointed that Prager is your source, but it's whatever at this point.

2) I guarantee this isn't about protecting the lives of the unborn - it may be to you, but it isn't to Alabaman senators. All it is is controlling women:

 

 

3) As far as late term abortions go, someone may have answered this, but 99.9% of women don't get pregnant for 7-9 months and abort the fetus for a laugh. It's generally only that health of the mother is at stake or the baby will die anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

to48puupldy21.jpg

"Pre-born? You're sacred. Pre-school? You're #$%#ed."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, thejazz97 said:

"Pre-born? You're sacred. Pre-school? You're #$%#ed."

Until you’re ready to serve and invade Iran. Then you’re just fine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jack_T said:

Until you’re ready to serve and invade Iran. Then you’re just fine!

a bit off-topic but

 

Spoiler

tT76lvA.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

"Pre-born? You're sacred. Pre-school? You're #$%#ed."

I miss George Carlin. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

1) Disappointed that Prager is your source, but it's whatever at this point.

2) I guarantee this isn't about protecting the lives of the unborn - it may be to you, but it isn't to Alabaman senators. All it is is controlling women:

 

 

3) As far as late term abortions go, someone may have answered this, but 99.9% of women don't get pregnant for 7-9 months and abort the fetus for a laugh. It's generally only that health of the mother is at stake or the baby will die anyway.

1. What does prager as the source have to do with the facts listed. Is your argument that a fetus in the womb by 10 weeks doesn't have a heart beat and vital organs? If not, then I don't see your point of even mentioning prager

 

2. You can't guarantee anything. You're also attributing motive to people you don't even know. By doing so you paint anyone that has a contrary view to your own as evil barbarians. If you actually talk to pro lifers you'd know that it's about to the protection of life and not about controlling women. That's just a narrative the media has fed you. At the end of the day this law is a compromise. 

Prolifers believe life starts at conception, prochoicers don't. Thus abortions are still permitted whilst the fetus is still just "a clump of cells" but once there are organs, once there is a heartbeat, you're going to have a tough time convincing the pro-life side that you're not killing a baby.

 

3. Of course no woman goes for an abortion for a laugh (although it's getting harder to tell the way the media has been glorifying abortion, making it seem like it should be just another birth control option for poor mistakes... Look up Michelle wolfe singing "God bless abortions" disgusting)... I suppose it's the same kind of extreme example as when rape/incest is used to justify abortions, the issue is however in the wording in the bill passed in New York doesn't define what child viability or risk to mother actually means. This is a completely separate discussion, a waste of time as 99% of abortions don't fall into this category.

 

Do you consider a fetus in the womb a human being at any point throughout the pregnancy? At what point? If 10 weeks is too little time to decide, up to what point should abortion not be allowed if at all?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The her body, her choice statements don’t actually hold water unless you’re willing to support full term abortions.

$&!# in some case a well past term abortion is in order...like for those 25 white dudes in Alabama that passed this law....

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

This is ridiculous. A womans right to choose is a done deal. Obviously abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control but there is many reasons a woman may choose an abortion

 

 

Yup.  

 

$&!# the drop in the crime rate in the US alone should be good enough for those 'tough on crime' conservatives against it. But for many I think 'tough on crime' means for profit prisons and slavery. 

 

Those unwanted babies are many, many times the ones that would grow up in $&!# households and eventually become a burden on society.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ryan Strome said:

I always think this should be a conversation if at all between women, doctors, councillors, etc but not old male politicians.

source.gif

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I always think this should be a conversation if at all between women, doctors, councillors, etc but not old male politicians.

I've had to be a part of this conversation twice. Both due to failure of birth control. Once a condom and once the failure of the pill. In the end I said it was their call and I was there for support either way. Am I happy they went that route? Oh hell yeah....but it was still tough on me and especially tough for them. I was there for both and drove them home so saw the immediate and delayed effects. It was the right choices I feel but they sure weren't easy ones to make. 

Edited by Gnarcore
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kushman said:

1. What does prager as the source have to do with the facts listed. Is your argument that a fetus in the womb by 10 weeks doesn't have a heart beat and vital organs? If not, then I don't see your point of even mentioning prager

 

2. You can't guarantee anything. You're also attributing motive to people you don't even know. By doing so you paint anyone that has a contrary view to your own as evil barbarians. If you actually talk to pro lifers you'd know that it's about to the protection of life and not about controlling women. That's just a narrative the media has fed you. At the end of the day this law is a compromise. 

Prolifers believe life starts at conception, prochoicers don't. Thus abortions are still permitted whilst the fetus is still just "a clump of cells" but once there are organs, once there is a heartbeat, you're going to have a tough time convincing the pro-life side that you're not killing a baby.

 

3. Of course no woman goes for an abortion for a laugh (although it's getting harder to tell the way the media has been glorifying abortion, making it seem like it should be just another birth control option for poor mistakes... Look up Michelle wolfe singing "God bless abortions" disgusting)... I suppose it's the same kind of extreme example as when rape/incest is used to justify abortions, the issue is however in the wording in the bill passed in New York doesn't define what child viability or risk to mother actually means. This is a completely separate discussion, a waste of time as 99% of abortions don't fall into this category.

 

Do you consider a fetus in the womb a human being at any point throughout the pregnancy? At what point? If 10 weeks is too little time to decide, up to what point should abortion not be allowed if at all?

1. Prager's right in this instance, but they suck as a general source and there were a million other places you could have gotten the info from. It's disappointing to see but it's why I said it's whatever

 

2. I used to be a pro-lifer. I still somewhat am? But I value choice more. In an ideal world, there's no need for abortion - either contraception keeps the woman from getting pregnant, or the woman decides to give birth. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and have to deal with instances like rape, incest, contraception which won't work 100% of the time, and financial instability for mothers and low financial support and bad education for children - especially if we're taking Alabama as our instance.

 

The instance I quoted of the Alabama senator was him saying that the in vitro fertilization didn't matter, because it wasn't through a pregnant woman. This implies - heavily - that they only care about controlling women. I'm not saying all anti-abortionists are, but these ones in particular do not seem to have it as their foremost interest.

 

The average pro-lifer has good intentions - for the child. I don't know if there's too much empathy for women who feel burdened by an unexpected pregnancy.

 

3. What would you say 99% of abortions fall into then?

 

I consider a fetus to be human, but I'm not certain it's a person. Even if it is, I believe in bodily autonomy for women. They should have the same reproductive rights as men - if they don't want to or don't feel they can deal with it anymore, they don't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kushman said:

 

 

Do you consider a fetus in the womb a human being at any point throughout the pregnancy? At what point? If 10 weeks is too little time to decide, up to what point should abortion not be allowed if at all?

Based on 2015 US data, 98.7% of abortions take place before week 21.  It is around the 21-23 week period that viability/survival of the fetus/baby becomes a factor.  I don't see how this is so hard.  The MAJORITY of women who have abortions after week 21 are not having them for a laugh cause they don't want them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kushman said:

Its not just her body at that point. It's another human life inside her. Does a human life only retain any rights once it is outside of the womb? Personal irresponsibility that leads to an unwanted pregnancy does not give anyone the right to kill another human life. ( Before someone gets outraged and brings up rape and incest... Those cases make up only around 1.5% of abortions. What to do in those situations can have a separate discussion.)

 

To characterize the pro-life position as "a bunch of old men" trying to "legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies..."  is to be completely intellectually dishonest about the issue.

 

From the pro life side, these laws are a concession against the "clump of cells" argument that prochoicers always use to justify abortions if they are early enough.. But of course once you give a little, it's never enough. A 9 month old baby can be aborted in certain states. Now that's insane!

 

 

 

If she's got to carry, nourish and deliver said life it's her choice. Period. Men don't get to decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies. Life isn't always pretty, protection doesn't always work. That's the raw reality. A woman can take absolutely every precaution and still end up pregnant, life happens. Does her having taken those steps make her irresponsible? No, it doesn't. But life still happens. If she doesn't want a kid, she doesn't want it. If she really doesn't want it she'll potentially resort to a solution that isn't safe for her. Taking the choice off the table is absurd. 

 

Intellectually dishonest? I understand that it's a complex issue and there are many sides but in the end those in power down in Alabama chose to pass this law. And yes, they're all middle aged/older white men who did just what I said. They've decided that women in a state cannot have an abortion. Period. They didn't even leave wiggle room for rape babies or incestuous children. No abortions. No choice. Period. 

 

If I'm ever in the situation where I've got a baby on the way it's in her hands. Period. I'll support her decision regardless of what it is. We're clearly not going to agree on this subject but that's where I stand all the same. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

1. Prager's right in this in this case.

 

3. What would you say 99% of abortions fall into then?

 

1. Glad you agree. 

 

3. If you take out rape, incest, and medically necessary abortions, so like 98% of the rest come from personal decision. abstinence,condoms,shots,IUDs,patches,pills,plan B pills. There are many options, but at the end of the day it's personal decision to have sex, protected or not. It's a choice, killing babies is not.

A child shouldn't suffer for the poor decision making by the parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If guys could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at a gas station.

Edited by Qwags
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alflives said:

You and your type always promote your beloved popcorn.  Yet, do you ever promote pretzels or peanuts?  Of course not.  You popcorn lovers are so narrow minded it’s disgusting.  :shock:

Hypocrite.

 

B2bxV31CcAAdkpg.jpg:large

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kushman said:

1. Glad you agree. 

 

3. If you take out rape, incest, and medically necessary abortions, so like 98% of the rest come from personal decision. abstinence,condoms,shots,IUDs,patches,pills,plan B pills. There are many options, but at the end of the day it's personal decision to have sex, protected or not. It's a choice, killing babies is not.

A child shouldn't suffer for the poor decision making by the parents.

Everything's a choice.

 

And what if that poor decision-making involves giving birth?

 

I'll tell you what you'll see with this bill passing, and if it wins in court:

- mortality rates for mothers going up (and they're already bad in America)

- more children being born into poverty

- people of colour being disproportionately affected

- increase in women having illegal and unsafe abortions performed

 

And I would not be surprised if you see an increase in babies being left for nature to take care of them, as well as an increase in suicide rates. The only difference researchers have found that restrictive abortion laws make, IIRC, is that the mortality rate for pregnant women goes up.

 

Should a woman suffer for poor decision-making by the state?

  • Upvote 1

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.