Sign in to follow this  
nucklehead

Crazy in Alabama

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Stuck in the dark ages like most permanent red states.

 

Alabama’s Senate approved legislation on Tuesday that would ban nearly all abortions in the state at every stage of pregancy, but refused to consider amendments that would take provide health care for the mothers who were denied abortions.

State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law. Her amendment was struck down by a vote of 23-6.

“The sin to me is bringing a child into this world and not taking care of them,” Coleman-Madison said. "The sin for me is that this state does not provide adequate care. We don’t provide education. And then when the child is born and we know that mother is indigent and she cannot take care of that child, we don’t provide any support systems for that mother.”

 

Colour me shocked.

 

Those in the Dark Ages who used horrifying methods to treat the sick are considered by our society to be lunatics, no?

Non of us will be around to know what future societies will think of us, but I'm wondering if they will view us as lunatics for killing babies, when they have means to keep babies developing outside of the mother's womb?

In our current society this law is clearly regressive.  How will it look to future societies?  Maybe 100 years from now, when medical technology is far more advanced, this law will be considered progressive, and even heroic?  

My point is we don't really know when life truly begins.  We are still in the Dark Ages in many ways, when it comes to medicine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Laugh all you want buddy.....I’m a level 666 Keyboard Warrior armed with a two handed purse that I can one-shot any tank.   I hope you can sleep well at night knowing you are on my list.:P

giphy.gif

  • Hydration 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I am really impressed at the respectful tones both perspectives are being presented from and listened too.  Way friendlier than any media source forums.

Its a hard issue as both sides see this as human rights -- women's rights vs when do you become human and deserve human rights?  

 

A Secondary issues that is at play that I find ironic:

-- For years people have been using the courts to challenge government laws -- in Canada you can look at:  abortion, same sex marriage, prostitution laws, doctor assisted death as examples.

In this case the State is using law to challenge court rulings.  -- They are trying to get this law to the supreme court to challenge precedent of Roe vs Wade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Those in the Dark Ages who used horrifying methods to treat the sick are considered by our society to be lunatics, no?

Non of us will be around to know what future societies will think of us, but I'm wondering if they will view us as lunatics for killing babies, when they have means to keep babies developing outside of the mother's womb?

In our current society this law is clearly regressive.  How will it look to future societies?  Maybe 100 years from now, when medical technology is far more advanced, this law will be considered progressive, and even heroic?  

My point is we don't really know when life truly begins.  We are still in the Dark Ages in many ways, when it comes to medicine.  

Speaking of lunatics...

 

Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant,"

 

 

Share this post


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

Speaking of lunatics...

 

Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant,"

 

 

He makes zero sense.  Is he talking about the morning after pill?  How long after being raped can the girl take that pill and it works?  

Share this post


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

He makes zero sense.  Is he talking about the morning after pill?  How long after being raped can the girl take that pill and it works?  

This is the problem.  There is no civil debate going on in the state legislature.  The politicians who wrote this into law are straight-up crazy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta admit, I didn't think this thread would make it to full term ( sorry, couldn't resist)

 

Good job being civil in this discussion CDC, maybe if we behave ourselves one day we can have another religion thread.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind there are so many contradictions by the politicians in the USA.  They want to protect the unborn and will implement extreme laws to do so, on the other hand most of the same guys bend over for the gun lobby and make it easier for quacks and nuts to attack their school aged children at an unprecedented rate.

 

My personal beliefs have changed over the years , mostly since ive had kids, there should be an age where aborting is a no go, but at the same time i think the government should stay out of personal decisions like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sbriggs said:

Doesn't matter whether abortion is good or bad its a womans right to choose and make decisions about her health and body. Period. The US are a F#%Ked up bunch of people. Maybe they should divide the US into 2 countries, inbreeds in the south, normal people in the north.

Contrary to many (most?) conservatives, I'm mixed on the matter.  My biggest objection to our situation down here is that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, and therefore should be overturned, reverting back to the Constitution, where the states make their own laws when the Constitution does not specifically state otherwise (10th Amendment, for anyone who wants to see the real verbiage).  It wouldn't surprise me if the Alabama ruling is designed to do get this to SCOTUS to be corrected, from a legal standpoint.

 

Regarding your statement (paraphrased by many here) "womans right to choose and make decisions about her health and body. Period.", consider the following:

 

If a 6 month old is screaming its head off for hours on end, can the mother "abort" now?  She is going through undue stress and losing sleep, so her health is being compromised.  What if, during delivery, the baby crowning and it hurts soooooo bad that the mother just says screw it, I'm done, get rid of it.  Sure, these are edge cases, but the pro-abortion position here has been pushing further and further towards that end in recent years.  Is it only a matter of time before this is considered acceptable?. 

 

Roe v Wade does not support 3rd trimester abortions, yet there are many who push to allow them, citing phrases like you mentioned.  Even during the 2nd trimester, the states were to be able to have some measure of regulation against abortion.  Roe v Wade was never intended to give women the right to choose, it was to allow doctors more leeway in medically necessary situations.

 

Here's an interesting read on the people involved in the Roe v Wade decision.  LA Times, not an editorial or opinion piece, so I'm not foisting any right-leaning stuff on anyone.  This was written a few years after the Justice Blackmun died and the eventual release of his private papers, giving additional insight to the situation.

 

Edit: Additional thought... since it is a woman's own body, is she now exempt from suicide laws?  It is her body, after all.

Edited by Kragar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

We need better incubator machines.  It’s sad the only option open to women is to abort, and the baby dies.  Rather than wasting money and effort arguing over pro this or pro that why not spend those dollars and efforts creating machines that can replicate the womb better?  

I guess you are referring to something like this?

Image result for fetus bag plastic

 

That may be used down the line for preemies... but probably won't work for fetuses that are terminated very very early.

 

Plus would the abortion be treated as just parents giving up their babies for adoption?  Who will pay for the $15,000 per day the baby resides in the hospital?  Are there enough prospective adoptive parents for all those babies?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Contrary to many (most?) conservatives, I'm mixed on the matter.  My biggest objection to our situation down here is that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, and therefore should be overturned, reverting back to the Constitution, where the states make their own laws when the Constitution does not specifically state otherwise (10th Amendment, for anyone who wants to see the real verbiage).  It wouldn't surprise me if the Alabama ruling is designed to do get this to SCOTUS to be corrected, from a legal standpoint.

 

Regarding your statement (paraphrased by many here) "womans right to choose and make decisions about her health and body. Period.", consider the following:

 

If a 6 month old is screaming its head off for hours on end, can the mother "abort" now?  She is going through undue stress and losing sleep, so her health is being compromised.  What if, during delivery, the baby crowning and it hurts soooooo bad that the mother just says screw it, I'm done, get rid of it.  Sure, these are edge cases, but the pro-abortion position here has been pushing further and further towards that end in recent years.  Is it only a matter of time before this is considered acceptable?. 

 

Roe v Wade does not support 3rd trimester abortions, yet there are many who push to allow them, citing phrases like you mentioned.  Even during the 2nd trimester, the states were to be able to have some measure of regulation against abortion.  Roe v Wade was never intended to give women the right to choose, it was to allow doctors more leeway in medically necessary situations.

 

Here's an interesting read on the people involved in the Roe v Wade decision.  LA Times, not an editorial or opinion piece, so I'm not foisting any right-leaning stuff on anyone.  This was written a few years after the Justice Blackmun died and the eventual release of his private papers, giving additional insight to the situation.

Please find me a single pro choice advocate who thinks killing a 6 month old baby due to annoyence is acceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Darius said:

In my mind there are so many contradictions by the politicians in the USA.  They want to protect the unborn and will implement extreme laws to do so, on the other hand most of the same guys bend over for the gun lobby and make it easier for quacks and nuts to attack their school aged children at an unprecedented rate.

 

My personal beliefs have changed over the years , mostly since ive had kids, there should be an age where aborting is a no go, but at the same time i think the government should stay out of personal decisions like this.

Definitely some contradictions here, and likely everywhere with politicians, especially in democracies since they have to try to please so many people all the time. 

 

For instance, the "science is settled" on climate change, but science is ignored when it comes to abortion.

 

Many states (including California, Illinois, Massachusetts... not just talking redneck states here ) have laws criminalizing the killing of unborn children.  That seems to conflict with a lot of abortion rights.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not what people would consider pro-life.  It's not something that will impact my life, or those I care most about, due to the stages of our lives.  I guess I'm open to it, undecided where the line should be (1st/2nd trimester), and IMO should be treated as elective, except where medically necessary. 

Share this post


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

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

Sadly, it’s really common... more so than we realize :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Please find me a single pro choice advocate who thinks killing a 6 month old baby due to annoyence is acceptable. 

I never said there was any.  My point was, give it time, it could happen.

 

Roe v Wade came about because many states would not allow abortion under any circumstances.  The ruling was intended to give doctors more leeway to protect mothers.  not a free-for-all right to choose.

 

Since then, US abortion laws have been moving later and later through term, to the point where we as a country already treat abortion more loosely than most of the world.  Recent laws attempted in NY and Virginia are pushing that envelope even further, and today there is discussion about post-birth abortion.  From a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.abstract):

 

Quote

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Is it such a stretch that this goes further?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I never said there was any.  My point was, give it time, it could happen.

 

Roe v Wade came about because many states would not allow abortion under any circumstances.  The ruling was intended to give doctors more leeway to protect mothers.  not a free-for-all right to choose.

 

Since then, US abortion laws have been moving later and later through term, to the point where we as a country already treat abortion more loosely than most of the world.  Recent laws attempted in NY and Virginia are pushing that envelope even further, and today there is discussion about post-birth abortion.  From a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.abstract):

 

Is it such a stretch that this goes further?

100 years from now, society will look back at us, and how we kill babies, and think we are the Dark Ages.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I never said there was any.  My point was, give it time, it could happen.

 

Roe v Wade came about because many states would not allow abortion under any circumstances.  The ruling was intended to give doctors more leeway to protect mothers.  not a free-for-all right to choose.

 

Since then, US abortion laws have been moving later and later through term, to the point where we as a country already treat abortion more loosely than most of the world.  Recent laws attempted in NY and Virginia are pushing that envelope even further, and today there is discussion about post-birth abortion.  From a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.abstract):

 

Is it such a stretch that this goes further?

Aren't the laws in New York and Virginia referring to babies born with such serious defects that they don't have a chance of survival?

 

Basically, you saying abortion is a slippery slope to killing a healthy 6 month old is the same as saying Alabama's new laws are a slippery slope to living in Giliead from Handmaid's Tale. We can conjecture about it all day long but neither scenario looks like it's an actual possibility. 

Share this post


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

100 years from now, society will look back at us, and how we kill babies, and think we are the Dark Ages.  

Who knows... maybe they will thank us instead.

Share this post


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

Aren't the laws in New York and Virginia referring to babies born with such serious defects that they don't have a chance of survival?

 

Basically, you saying abortion is a slippery slope to killing a healthy 6 month old is the same as saying Alabama's new laws are a slippery slope to living in Giliead from Handmaid's Tale. We can conjecture about it all day long but neither scenario looks like it's an actual possibility. 

I never claimed to support the Alabama law.  I pointed out my position earlier on this page, being a fairly moderate one.

 

The paper I quoted from goes beyond what you describe: "the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.".  They are suggesting that if abortion is allowed, then it should be allowed post-birth, regardless of the child's health.  It may not have widespread support, but these are highly educated people suggesting that this is how it should be.  They have access to students and are able to spread their views to others eager to learn.  It's not some fringe blogger or crackpot website that most sane people ignore.

 

I haven't read the book or seen the show, so forgive me if I don't capture Giliead's situation completely.  Google quickly shows that it is some totalitarian state, where women are property.  Common sense should show that a crapload of things would have to happen to get to that level, so I would say your second paragraph is not accurate.  If you compared Roe v Wade and Handmaid's tale, that would be more accurate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why don't these politicians use  'thoughts and prayers' to stop abortions?

 

You know the same thoughts and prayers that are the only thing they can offer up when school age children are gunned down just attending classes.

Edited by nuckin_futz

Share this post


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

I never claimed to support the Alabama law.  I pointed out my position earlier on this page, being a fairly moderate one.

 

The paper I quoted from goes beyond what you describe: "the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.".  They are suggesting that if abortion is allowed, then it should be allowed post-birth, regardless of the child's health.  It may not have widespread support, but these are highly educated people suggesting that this is how it should be.  They have access to students and are able to spread their views to others eager to learn.  It's not some fringe blogger or crackpot website that most sane people ignore.

See and that's the point.  So many people try to make this about women's rights but at the same time dispel the idea of full term abortions, which totally contradicts the notion of fully supporting women's rights. They scream and shout "women's body, women choice", right up until a point where they do a full 180 and say sorry women, the fetus has value and needs to be protected (the exact same position as pro-lifers).  How are they any different than the people they are criticizing?  The only difference between their stances is the time frame at when THEY feel the fetus has value, that's it.  

 

If people were being honest with themselves and consistent in their argument about fully believing it's the women's choice, then you're absolutely right, they should be in support of that right up until birth and potentially beyond.  

 

The problem i have is, so many have taken such a hard stance on the matter but at the same time haven't really defined their opinion.  They're not afraid to call people who they think have differing opinions every name in the book without even knowing what they themselves truly believe.  

 

  • 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.