Alabama passed a near-total abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest

[DrDoug]

I think the Alabama Republicans knew that they would have to do something about forcing pregnant liberal women in their state to give birth, increasing the number of liberals because of course conservatives never abort their babies.

Thus their not allowing exceptions for rape and incest, helping to keep their base strong.

 

[ivwshane]

Not when it impacts the child she is carrying. Many states prosecute mothers for abusing substances that negatively impact the health and development of their unborn children. We’ve tried murderers for the death of both their pregnant victim and her unborn child.

Congrats, you’re being obtuse

Consciousness or self is a combination of biological function and mental awareness, which manifests itself as the ability to experience or process stimuli such as pain, sound, scent, light, etc.

Even in Row V Wade, SCOTUS acknowledged the balance of the mother’s right relative to those of the child, and did not define a woman’s right as absolute. Initially, trimesters defined this balance. Later, viability. What I am saying is that a better understanding of prenatal consciousness could define the balance even more.

If science could establish that a fetus can experience pain at four weeks, this arguably imposes a suffering on the unborn that by default extends to it Constitutional protections.

Paramedics don’t just give up because a heart stops. We sustain life using machines even after brain activity ceases. We don’t euthanize dementia patients simply because they’ve lost the memories that define who they are.

But you know all of that.

And you don't know shit.

https://apnews.com/urn:publicid:ap.org:a062e156436849098e6feb18f6c6b65a

And only the shittiest of states have such laws and I'm sure if they were challenged they would be ruled unconstitutional like the one above.

https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state

 

[Starbuck1975]

And you don't know shit.

https://apnews.com/urn:publicid:ap.org:a062e156436849098e6feb18f6c6b65a

And only the shittiest of states have such laws and I'm sure if they were challenged they would be ruled unconstitutional like the one above.

https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/maternity-drug-policies-by-state

Pure speculation on your part.

The website you linked, if you filter the map by states where women have been prosecuted for prenatal negligence, nearly every state is a yes.

Fail.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Cows experience pain but we don’t give them constitutional protections. The ability to react to stimulus does not mean constitutional protections automatically attach.

A cow is not a person, although we do hold people accountable for animal cruelty, and in some parts of the world, cows are sacred animals. Better example perhaps?

A fetus is not an independent creature capable of living on its own.

Neither is an adult in a vegetative state or an elderly person with certain advanced medical conditions, yet we as a society choose to extend to them a right to life.

But I am sure our 43rd favorite tv character from the 70s knows all these things and chooses to ignore them.

I know that your points didn’t refute mine. Nice attempt.

 

[ivwshane]

Pure speculation on your part.

The website you linked, if you filter the map by states where women have been prosecuted for prenatal negligence, nearly every state is a yes.

Fail.

Check the mirror guy. The one filter where mosts states are a yes does not contain enough information to draw a conclusion with. For example, for some states the prosecution was for murder after the baby was born and the prosecution cited drugs in the babies system. So yeah, speculation, on your part.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Check the mirror guy. The one filter where mosts states are a yes does not contain enough information to draw a conclusion with. For example, for some states the prosecution was for murder after the baby was born and the prosecution cited drugs in the babies system. So yeah, speculation, on your part.

Speculation on your part. The judiciary has yet to roll back the limitations you mentioned despite ample opportunities to do so, and the data you linked tells a vastly different story than you asserted if you bother to look at the different ways of filtering the data.

Choose the filter “women have been prosecuted” and all but three or four states light up. Choose the filter of substance abuse during pregnancy is CHILD abuse and most of the south and the rust belt lights up. MA, VA and most of the Great Lakes and states bordering Canada light up if you filter that health care workers have a legal responsibility to report pregnant women who are abusing substances. You’re right, all sh!tholes. lol

All the filters vary depending on the circumstances.

Fail.

 

[ivwshane]

Speculation on your part. The judiciary has yet to roll back the limitations you mentioned despite ample opportunities to do so, and the data you linked tells a vastly different story than you asserted if you bother to look at the different ways of filtering the data.

Choose the filter “women have been prosecuted” and all but three or four states light up. Choose the filter of substance abuse during pregnancy is CHILD abuse and most of the south and the rust belt lights up. MA, VA and most of the Great Lakes and states bordering Canada light up if you filter that health care workers have a legal responsibility to report pregnant women who are abusing substances. You’re right, all sh!tholes. lol

All the filters vary depending on the circumstances.

Fail.

Despite opportunity to do so? I'll take a citation on that one.
And no, not all filters very depending on circumstances. Did you even bother to read them? Most were pretty specific. The one filter you cited had one thing in common for the information that was available and that was that the baby was harmed after it was born.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hoes need abortions!

This law is probably too restrictive, but whatever.

 

[ivwshane]

Hoes need abortions!

This law is probably too restrictive, but whatever.

Whatever, who cares, its not like you are losing control over your body. FYGM!

 

[Starbuck1975]

Despite opportunity to do so? I'll take a citation on that one.
And no, not all filters very depending on circumstances. Did you even bother to read them? Most were pretty specific. The one filter you cited had one thing in common for the information that was available and that was that the baby was harmed after it was born.

The Pro-Life movement is hardly dormant. If there are standing laws you care to cite that you are certain SCOTUS would knock down, there would already be lawsuits.

Baby was harmed after it was born based on decisions the mother made while the child was in the womb.

 

[ivwshane]

The Pro-Life movement is hardly dormant. If there are standing laws you care to cite that you are certain SCOTUS would knock down, there would already be lawsuits.

Baby was harmed after it was born based on decisions the mother made while the child was in the womb.

I already provided one example now its your turn.

 

[Jaskalas]

To be opposed to something the majority here supports is an interesting perspective these days. I see many posters standing firm on a person's right to murder, and quite honestly not giving it a second thought.

Have you never heard of Gianna Jessen?

I ask this because one popular and brainless phrase is "just a clump of cells". Or "not a child". Very popular to dehumanize your victims, your opponents. In this case the unborn children who are murdered. Yet she IS a person and medical records indicate that someone did attempt to abort and kill her. So tell me, given that children sometimes survive the attempt to kill them, how are you going to tell me that late term abortion is not murder, or that she is just a clump of cells?

I say a human is a human, and that seems to drive people's domga crazy.

The only civil answer to this topic is one that relents and allows a compromise. One that respects people's "privacy" AND later respects the life of the child. Abortion should be off limits by at least week 28, except when medically necessary. Maybe that exact number can be changed, lower is better IMO, but that's me. I oppose abortion in a general sense, but I respect the will of those who demand it. I recognize that early on in a pregnancy is not the same as later. I would oppose a ban in the first trimester. I think we need to negotiate and come to an acceptable agreement on the cut off date during the second trimester.

It would be convenient if you never had to listen to an opponent, never had to give thought or consideration. Never had to compromise. Republicans are relishing in their moment, do you intend to join them in the mud? I hear it is nice, cozy, and filthy down there. Are you quite certain you want to be like them? Surrendering reason for madness? I just don't think that'd allow for a civil society, someone needs to stand for common decency and if it isn't going to be them then it damn well needs to be us.

We need to understand the price of absolutes, of demanding no compromises on social issues. Republicans are wrong here, please do not mirror them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I already provided one example now its your turn.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/substance-use-during-pregnancy

 

[HomerJS]

So when does a person become a person to which we extend Constitutional protection? I don’t consider a religious explanation to be acceptable.

Right now that answer is just an opinion of different groups. The fertilized egg is a person position is steeped in religion. Why should we make laws based on the opinion of a few legislators.

Commission a purely scientific study as to when life begins and that life is an established person. Remove religion and layman from this study. The plurality of scientists will be the answer.

 

[Sunburn74]

3rd trimester is fine except in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, or severe developmental abnormalities in the fetus (for these abortion beyond the 3rd trimester should perfectly fine)

 

[kage69]

I think Sam Bee is onto something here. It really does seem like many republican politicians have no damn idea how procreation works beyond ejaculation. Another sad comment on red state education priorities. Note too that people on the left don't get it right either sometimes, but it's the difference between a slip up and flag waving charge with bugles.

Especially approve of the portion regarding personal opinions at 7:52.

 

[ivwshane]

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/substance-use-during-pregnancy

Reading comprehension; you suck at it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Whatever, who cares, its not like you are losing control over your body. FYGM!

On the flip side of the coin those that are against abortion honestly believe that a baby is being murdered. It is up for debate if that is the case, but they have legitimate arguments. Just as the other side, the pro-choice crowd, has legitimate arguments about the rights of a woman over her own body. Sorry, but I see both sides of this argument and do not think there is a clear right or wrong. Let states decide, let some be restrictive, some not... again, whatever.

 

[soundforbjt]

On the flip side of the coin those that are against abortion honestly believe that a baby is being murdered. It is up for debate if that is the case, but they have legitimate arguments. Just as the other side, the pro-choice crowd, has legitimate arguments about the rights of a woman over her own body. Sorry, but I see both sides of this argument and do not think there is a clear right or wrong. Let states decide, let some be restrictive, some not... again, whatever.

So, should the states that decide to be highly restrictive offer to provide additional money and care for the child after it is born or say FU kid, get a job?

 

[ivwshane]

On the flip side of the coin those that are against abortion honestly believe that a baby is being murdered. It is up for debate if that is the case, but they have legitimate arguments. Just as the other side, the pro-choice crowd, has legitimate arguments about the rights of a woman over her own body. Sorry, but I see both sides of this argument and do not think there is a clear right or wrong. Let states decide, let some be restrictive, some not... again, whatever.

Again you can't say you care about the welfare of the baby and then not support policies that ensure the welfare of the baby. Its why it's a bull shit argument because it's not about the baby.

 

[Moonbeam]

We create what we fear. People who fear abortion will make sure it stays legal. The only kind of fear we can't successfully avoid is fear that is real. One of those would be back alley death of women.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Reading comprehension; you suck at it.

Intellectual honesty, you fail at it.

 

[ivwshane]

Intellectual honesty, you fail at it.

Well you are the expert on intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Commodus]

On the flip side of the coin those that are against abortion honestly believe that a baby is being murdered. It is up for debate if that is the case, but they have legitimate arguments. Just as the other side, the pro-choice crowd, has legitimate arguments about the rights of a woman over her own body. Sorry, but I see both sides of this argument and do not think there is a clear right or wrong. Let states decide, let some be restrictive, some not... again, whatever.

No, the only acceptable option is pro-choice. If you don't believe abortion is right, then don't have one. But a large portion of the public believes abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, and Roe v. Wade already decided the issue of access on a national level, not state by state. As such, your liberties on this front are not and should not be dictated by where you live in the country.

It's kind of funny, for someone who claims to be about civil liberties, you sure seem to hate them when women and minorities are involved.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So, should the states that decide to be highly restrictive offer to provide additional money and care for the child after it is born or say FU kid, get a job?

I think this is a tactic lefties use all the time... Do not conflate issues. What happens once the child is born has nothing to do with if or if not a fetus has the right to not be terminated/murdered (depending on how one views it). Even if they walk into your shrewdly laid out "gotcha" that has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is murdering a human being or a woman's right to do what she wants with her body trumping that.