Sign in to follow this  
nucklehead

Crazy in Alabama

Recommended Posts

28 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.

 

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.

Yep, I saw that and didn't claim you support the laws. I happen to disagree with your hypothesis that we're on a slippery slope to killing healthy babies months after they've been born, just because.

 

Highly educated people say nutty $&!# all the time. It doesn't mean the general public will agree with it. I'm pro-choice and think the idea of killing a perfectly healthy baby, rather than giving it up for adoption, is abhorrent; and I feel fairly confident in saying that the vast majority of people would agree with me on that.

 

You say a crap-ton needs to happen to get us to Handmaid's Tale, I say a crap-ton needs to happen to get us to your hypothetical situation.

Share this post


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

Yep, I saw that and didn't claim you support the laws. I happen to disagree with your hypothesis that we're on a slippery slope to killing healthy babies months after they've been born, just because.

 

Highly educated people say nutty $&!# all the time. It doesn't mean the general public will agree with it. I'm pro-choice and think the idea of killing a perfectly healthy baby, rather than giving it up for adoption, is abhorrent; and I feel fairly confident in saying that the vast majority of people would agree with me on that.

 

You say a crap-ton needs to happen to get us to Handmaid's Tale, I say a crap-ton needs to happen to get us to your hypothetical situation.

For a change, you and I are pretty close on something political.  Cheers :)

 

I think you are right on how most people feel.  I would add that most people do not support third trimester abortions, IIRC, but there are some that demand it as right.  It's a very complicated topic, for sure.

 

I'll continue to disagree with your last statement, but they are both hypothetical enough that we don't need to butt heads on it any further.  Happy Friday!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

For a change, you and I are pretty close on something political.  Cheers :)

 

I think you are right on how most people feel.  I would add that most people do not support third trimester abortions, IIRC, but there are some that demand it as right.  It's a very complicated topic, for sure.

 

I'll continue to disagree with your last statement, but they are both hypothetical enough that we don't need to butt heads on it any further.  Happy Friday!

Well, I’ll be damned!

 

Happy Friday!

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

 

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

Your veiws are extreme and examples are ridiculous, this is a simple  issue, woman have the right to make her own decision about her body and health, period. Would you want to have the government make decisions about your body or health issues? I think not. Maybe you should move to the southern US since it fits your lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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.

Thank you

Share this post


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

Your veiws are extreme and examples are ridiculous, this is a simple  issue, woman have the right to make her own decision about her body and health, period. Would you want to have the government make decisions about your body or health issues? I think not. Maybe you should move to the southern US since it fits your lifestyle.

If it were so simple an issue then we wouldn't have a problem, right?  There are many (looks like about 50%) who believe the baby has rights too.  The same rights as any other person:  the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property or happiness.  To deny that baby/person those rights is in contradiction to what is humane in a modern society.

At least that's the argument I think.  So it's not so simple.  When is said baby a person?  I don't think we really know, at least not with our current understanding.  This is a debate that will continue for a long time.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your veiws are extreme and examples are ridiculous, this is a simple  issue, woman have the right to make her own decision about her body and health, period. Would you want to have the government make decisions about your body or health issues? I think not. Maybe you should move to the southern US since it fits your lifestyle.

Killing a human life is never a simple issue. Are you deliberately ignoring the part where it's not JUST a woman's body and decision? The only choice in the matter was whether or not to have sex. Once that choice has been made, the consequences that result aren't as simple as "her body, her choice". There is a separate living human life inside of her. Personal irresponsibility does not justify killing another human life. 

 

There will always be an impasse on this issue so long as one side refuses to acknowledge that pregnancy isn't just about a woman's body, but about another human life. Poverty, inconvenience, whatever reason you come up with are not strong enough to justify killing another human life. 

 

That's the problem with society. Everything has become so casual, and nobody likes taking any responsibility for their own personal choices. 

 

I'm going to keep bringing up the fact that this issue revolves around ANOTHER HUMAN LIFE, because the only debate that should be had here is whether or not there is ever justification in ending a human life. This "white men want to control womens bodies" is not an argument and its an intellectually dishonest framing of the pro-life position.

Edited by Kushman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

They sound violent to me.

Stop booming those babies. Gosh, that's brutal. 

Personally, I think it's just awful that thousands of babies are squished every year, just so we can have baby oil....<_<

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sbriggs said:

Your veiws are extreme and examples are ridiculous, this is a simple  issue, woman have the right to make her own decision about her body and health, period. Would you want to have the government make decisions about your body or health issues? I think not. Maybe you should move to the southern US since it fits your lifestyle.

Ok so then you are in full support of a women making the decision to have a full term abortion then?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pfft, America. So behind the times.  

Share this post


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

Your veiws are extreme and examples are ridiculous, this is a simple  issue, woman have the right to make her own decision about her body and health, period. Would you want to have the government make decisions about your body or health issues? I think not. Maybe you should move to the southern US since it fits your lifestyle.

Did I ever state, anywhere, that the examples I listed reflected my views?  No.  They are hypotheticals of what could be, especially since there are discussions about post-birth abortion already going on.  

 

But since we're talking about my examples, regarding the second one, since it is not quite post-birth and still officially third trimester, are you going to deny the woman the right to make that choice?

 

The government already does make decisions about my body and health issues already.  If we ever get Medicare for all, it will be more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NUCKER67 said:

pfft, America. So behind the times.  

or maybe, just maybe Alabama is ahead of the times?  Medicine is always advancing.  Maybe we are in the Dark Ages having any abortions?  

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

That would be first degree murder.

Not in Canada. I haven't read up on Canada's abortion laws in some time, but as far as I remember, there are zero restrictions on abortions up to any point in term of the pregnancy. Doesn't even have to be life threatening to the mother or anything to do with the viability of the child if I'm not mistaken. Pretty much as strict of a pro-choice law as you can get. 

Share this post


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

or maybe, just maybe Alabama is ahead of the times?  Medicine is always advancing.  Maybe we are in the Dark Ages having any abortions?  

Perhaps? It just doesn't make sense to me though. They're up in arms about allowing women to make choices for their own bodies, but yet will keep a monster like Charles Manson alive. I guess there are different view points. What happens to all of these babies that are unwanted or uncared for?  Drug addicts having babies produce sick babies. Rape victims may not want a daily reminder of the vicious attack they faced.

Share this post


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

Killing a human life is never a simple issue. Are you deliberately ignoring the part where it's not JUST a woman's body and decision? The only choice in the matter was whether or not to have sex. Once that choice has been made, the consequences that result aren't as simple as "her body, her choice". There is a separate living human life inside of her. Personal irresponsibility does not justify killing another human life. 

 

There will always be an impasse on this issue so long as one side refuses to acknowledge that pregnancy isn't just about a woman's body, but about another human life. Poverty, inconvenience, whatever reason you come up with are not strong enough to justify killing another human life. 

 

That's the problem with society. Everything has become so casual, and nobody likes taking any responsibility for their own personal choices. 

 

I'm going to keep bringing up the fact that this issue revolves around ANOTHER HUMAN LIFE, because the only debate that should be had here is whether or not there is ever justification in ending a human life. This "white men want to control womens bodies" is not an argument and its an intellectually dishonest framing of the pro-life position.

and where are the laws about this issue?

surely alabama will be presenting some draft legislation shortly

 

i'm thinking some minimum sitting distance law between genders is also in order

so that sperm and ova never get too close

unless necessary copulating permits have been obtained from the appropriate government office

Edited by coastal.view

Share this post


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

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

Not 6 months, but here is an article published in the journal of medical ethics that says post-birth abortions should be allowed. (they suggest a few days to decide)  Published in 2013

https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.full

Share this post


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

Not in Canada. I haven't read up on Canada's abortion laws in some time, but as far as I remember, there are zero restrictions on abortions up to any point in term of the pregnancy. Doesn't even have to be life threatening to the mother or anything to do with the viability of the child if I'm not mistaken. Pretty much as strict of a pro-choice law as you can get. 

Killing a nine-month old baby is murder according to the law. That's how it was written in your post 17 hours ago.

 

Maybe you meant nine-month old in the womb?

 

It does seem strange that there are no restrictions on time limits though. A person's body should be there's to do what they see fit with, and government should mind it's own business and stay out of peoples inner sanctum. It's odd though that Canada has zero restrictions on abortion, but doesn't allow women performing surrogacies to be paid for it. The double standard at play there is disgusting, and not shocking, all things considered.

 

As well, most women who have had abortions, weren't making the decision flippantly as some would suggest, and some of those women have taken their own lives after the fact out of guilt.

 

For those who are looking to put some legal ramifications on a woman's right to choose, are they ready to take on the child after birth and raise it, or are they merely interested in forcing their personal/religious/moral ideals on people who don't share them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care at all either way. Abort or don't abort. Whatever you want to do. I just find it funny when woman claim no one can say what they do with their body. No one cares what you do with your body. They care about what you do with the unborn baby's body. It's another life inside you that they care about, it's not your body.

 

Also the whole "It's not really a baby until x amount of weeks!".  Yes it is. If you want to kill it, go ahead, but don't try and call it something it's not. It's baby killing. Be honest about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 minutes ago, dm_ranger said:

Not 6 months, but here is an article published in the journal of medical ethics that says post-birth abortions should be allowed. (they suggest a few days to decide)  Published in 2013

https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261.full

Are the authors of that paper pro-choice? I didn’t read that anywhere in the text. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

For those who are looking to put some legal ramifications on a woman's right to choose, are they ready to take on the child after birth and raise it, or are they merely interested in forcing their personal/religious/moral ideals on people who don't share them?

Pro-life people believe that the fetus is human life, and thus should be treated and protected as equal to value human life.  

 

Just because someone has to be raised, or will be born into low income, low education, or is simply just unwanted it’s doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to live and be protected. Those types of stances become a very thin line to plant your feet on when you start to break them down.

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.