Sign in to follow this  
nucklehead

Crazy in Alabama

Recommended Posts

Men and women have similar views when it comes to abortion. Overall the population is evenly split between pro life and pro choice.

 

Line graph: Americans on abortion: pro-choice or pro-life? 2018: 48% pro-choice, 48% pro-life. Highs: 56% pro-ch. (â95), 51% pro-l. (â09).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jack_T said:

Not only is this false, but the use of “full term” abortions is bizarre. 

 

Since when did conservatism become the symbol of lying through one’s teeth and relentlessly spewing BS?

It’s call simple logic. Does it not all of the sudden become the women’s body at 20  weeks? 30 weeks? 39.5 weeks? 

 

Funny how the left is so inconsistent with facts. 

 

Share this post


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

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

I’m not making an argument about the people that passed the law. I made an argument about how the inconsistent that statement is. When so much grey is involved it takes away any validity of making that claim. 

 

But on the topic of the dudes making the law who really cares. It’s not weak argument. Does one have to have a certain genitalia or experience, in order to have an opinion on something. I’ve never been murdered and don’t personal know any one who has been, doesn’t stop me from believing it’s wrong. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Miler said:

Men and women have similar views when it comes to abortion. Overall the population is evenly split between pro life and pro choice.

 

Line graph: Americans on abortion: pro-choice or pro-life? 2018: 48% pro-choice, 48% pro-life. Highs: 56% pro-ch. (â95), 51% pro-l. (â09).

You should link to the full poll results - you wouldn’t want to come off as misleading.

 

According the the same gallop polling, there is overwhelming support for pro choice when the woman’s life is in danger, or the pregnancy is the result of rape (or incest). It is also heavily in favour during the 1st 3 months. 

 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

7 hours ago, thejazz97 said:

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.

You see that’s where your point hit a wall. Finances and income have zero effect on the value of a life.

 

I want you to really think about the impact about that statement.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Stamkos said:

They just opened it up for illegal methods of abortion, which is obviously very unsafe. It’s the reason marijuana was legalized, so people would stop using it dangerously.  

 

I can only imagine how many horrible parents are going to get strangers to impregnate their daughters for government child support. 

If a parent does that I hope they get thrown in to jail for life.  That would be absoultely sickening.

Share this post


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

It’s call simple logic. Does it not all of the sudden become the women’s body at 20  weeks? 30 weeks? 39.5 weeks? 

 

Funny how the left is so inconsistent with facts. 

 

False. Biologically speaking, there is a difference from 10 weeks and 39.5 weeks. 

Share this post


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

False. Biologically speaking, there is a difference from 10 weeks and 39.5 weeks. 

So it’s not still in the women’s body?  

What happened to women body, women’s choice?  Don’t you care about women’s rights?

Edited by ForsbergTheGreat

Share this post


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

So it’s not still in the women’s body?  

What happened to women body, women’s choice?  Don’t you care about women’s rights?

My view on abortion, which is worth very little, is not nearly as black and white as you attempt to portray it. 

 

It is impossible to have a conversation on abortion with someone who ignores science. 

 

 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to have any of these arguments if the decision is left with the mother, just saying. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

My view on abortion, which is worth very little, is not nearly as black and white as you attempt to portray it. 

 

It is impossible to have a conversation on abortion with someone who ignores science. 

Science?  What on earth are you talking about. You haven’t mention anything to do with scientific fact.  I won’t hold my breath for your science to prove that an unborn baby at 39 weeks is not still inside a women’s body. 

 

It’s quite clear that your opinion on this matter is weak and you’re now back pedaling as fast as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only one man's opinion, but this article suggests that the situation might not be as bad as we think:

 

https://thebulwark.com/newsletter-issue/the-alabama-abortion-law-is-the-best-thing-to-ever-happen-to-planned-parenthood/

Quote

 

I know: Who would have thought that the state party organization that gave us this guy would come up with an abortion bill designed to piss off everyone in America.

Thanks, Alabama.

I would now like to make the case to you that the Alabama abortion law is the most damaging development to the pro-life movement in decades.

Let’s start with this: As Kim Wehle explains, this law will never be put into effect. It will be overturned at the appellate level. It will almost certainly be denied certification by the Supreme Court. It will then disappear into the pro-choice direct mail machine where it will raise tens of millions of dollars for the groups who want unlimited, unfettered abortion on demand.

It will not prevent a single abortion. It will not save the life of a single unborn child.

This is the key: The Alabama law is nothing more than virtue signaling. It has nothing—nothing whatsoever—to do with curtailing actual abortions being performed in the real world.

But if you’re a pro-lifer, it gets even worse.

Over the last 25 years or so, pro-life organizations have devoted their energy to an incremental approach to abortion reforms. They’ve been playing for bunts and singles and never swinging for the fences.

As a practical matter, this has always struck me as smart. Because the truth is, the mass of public opinion is not where the people in pro-life organizations are.

(If you want to listen in on a perfect distillation of this, here’s a link to yesterday’s Secret Podcast, where Sarah and I talked about the Alabama law at length. If you’re new here: The Secret Podcast is a show we do just for donors who support The Bulwark.)

If you want to end the abortion regime, you don’t get rid of it by outlawing abortion. There is a teaching effect to the law, but it’s not strong enough to support a law which does not have the consent of a large percentage of the citizenry.

You get rid of abortion by moving public opinion. Which is hard. It’s incremental. It’s small steps. You have to give up on antagonizing the other side and always be looking to convert people through good will.

It takes a long time.

But here’s the thing: It’s been working! For the last 25-years public opinion has moved in the pro-life direction. Technology has helped, as pre-natal medicine and ultrasounds brought into focus the very real life of the unborn. But pro-lifers did a good job of not asking the law to take steps the public wasn’t ready for and refusing to get into fights about edge cases.

And now, we have the Republican party of Alabama creating a meaningless law with no chance of standing that goes directly contrary to the main body of public opinion and focuses, by design, on the edge cases of rape and incest.

Bang up job, gang.

This law is going to drive pro-choice fundraising for a decade.

And it’s going to make the lives of vulnerable incumbent Republicans across the country very difficult.

How is Martha McSally supposed to answer questions about the Alabama law? Or Cory Gardner? It’s entirely possible that this stunt will help lose a Senate seat or two this election and contribute to losses in future elections.

And as for the cause itself, pro-lifers now find themselves in the position of having to make their arguments not about the vast swath of common ground where the general public agrees with them, but on the single most unpopular parts of their views.

Planned Parenthood couldn’t have designed a better weapon in their wildest dreams.

It’s just one more reminder of why it actually is kind of important to police your own side. If conservatives had any interest in doing that kind of work these days, they might have avoided this disaster.

 

This isn't to say that I agree or disagree with the author's position, but I thought a different viewpoint might be cause for discussion.

Share this post


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

We don't need to have any of these arguments if the decision is left with the mother, just saying. 

Here’s the “issue”, if you can even refer to it as an issue. The entire reason we (the world) has a government is to look after the best interest of people, because if leaving everyone to make their own decision as to what’s best for “them”, then you have a bunch of morons cracking their heads and dying on the sidewalk because they don’t wear helmets when biking, etc.

 

On this particular issue, if someone sits on the left of the fence? Fine. If someone sits on the right? Fine. Not going to weigh into this publicly, because most here are somewhat intelligent, firmly planted on their side of the fence. So it’s not really worth getting into a “discussion”, at least to me. I know where I sit and have gone back and forth on it for 20+ years. Not really looking to change sides. But also not going to tell people what they should do. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Science?  What on earth are you talking about. You haven’t mention anything to do with scientific fact.  I won’t hold my breath for your science to prove that an unborn baby at 39 weeks is not still inside a women’s body. 

 

It’s quite clear that your opinion on this matter is weak and you’re now back pedaling as fast as possible. 

The only thing I find weak is your fanatical position. Given that I do not view abortion as a black and white issue - that is either you are entirely for or against - I reject your weak ”logical” premise on the grounds that it requires a far too simplistic stance on abortion. 

 

I am not sure how I am back pedaling on my position seeing as how I have not stated it. More evidence of your fanaticism. 

 

Depending on the term of the pregnancy, I am pro-choice without condition. However, in late term abortions I would generally only be in favour in unique circumstances; health being a major one. Having said that, I would still support the individual’s right to choose, notwithstanding the stupid scenarios you’ll cook up regarding mass murder etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Monty said:

Here’s the “issue”, if you can even refer to it as an issue. The entire reason we (the world) has a government is to look after the best interest of people, because if leaving everyone to make their own decision as to what’s best for “them”, then you have a bunch of morons cracking their heads and dying on the sidewalk because they don’t wear helmets when biking, etc.

 

On this particular issue, if someone sits on the left of the fence? Fine. If someone sits on the right? Fine. Not going to weigh into this publicly, because most here are somewhat intelligent, firmly planted on their side of the fence. So it’s not really worth getting into a “discussion”, at least to me. I know where I sit and have gone back and forth on it for 20+ years. Not really looking to change sides. But also not going to tell people what they should do. 

for me it comes down to risk, who takes it and who its being forced upon. The difference here as well is were not talking about pan-societal safety measures that governments have to take to keep people from walking off cliffs, these are decisions at the individual and family level. Sure some can try to abstract it to a societal issue but in reality its down at the individual level. Thats where the final decision should rest imo. Similar to how we're now allowed to plan our own deaths, I don't want government control of that either, or someones particular region telling me what i can do with my body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Sure some can try to abstract it to a societal issue but in reality its down at the individual level. Thats where the final decision should rest imo

And that’s where we differ. Which is fine.

  • Hydration 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.