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

[soundforbjt]

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.

So, I'll put you down as a NO then.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So, I'll put you down as a NO then.

For argument's sake let's say sure, I don't. You got me... now on to what matters for this discussion, the embryo/fetus/child's right to life and not be terminated/murdered or the woman's right to her own body. Like I said, both sides have legitimate points.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well you are the expert on intellectual dishonesty.

You demonstrate it so well, it doesn’t take much expertise to recognize it. Earlier in thread I admitted my mistake in misreading what you wrote. You should try it some time.

 

[DrDoug]

This just might work...

 

[HomerJS]

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.

It is a valid response because it shows Republicans are only pro life in utero. Complete hypocrites

 

[ch33zw1z]

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.

Lol, republicans "gotcha" themselves, blame the Dems...

 

[DrDoug]

Unlike others here, especially the pro-birth fuckwits, I'll bring a personal experience in to this discussion. Early in our marriage, my wife had to receive treatment for a medical condition. Unfortunately the medical professionals neglected to tell her that the treatment would make her birth control less effective. You can guess what happened. When her doctor found out he told her that it was very likely that the baby would be born with severe deformities. We talked about it and I told her that I would respect her decision. My feelings irrelevant as far as I was concerned, she was the one carrying. She chose to have a abortion and that was the end of it for us. Today in Alabama she would be forced to leave the state and if she couldn't afford to, she would be forced to have the baby.

Despite what religious conservatives think, people don't get pregnant and then have abortions just for fun.

 

[Vic]

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

The 14th amendment clearly states such protections begin at birth.

 

[Commodus]

Now that Trump has stated explicitly that he's anti-choice, I'm expecting the resident Trump worshippers to follow suit regardless of what they believed before.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The 14th amendment clearly states such protections begin at birth.

But even in Roe V Wade, SCOTUS did not rule that a woman’s right to an abortion is absolute, and laws based on things like heartbeat are clearly aimed at extending personhood to a fetus.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It is a valid response because it shows Republicans are only pro life in utero. Complete hypocrites

Can you expand on that? How are Republicans only pro-life while in the womb?

 

[DrDoug]

Can you expand on that? How are Republicans only pro-life while in the womb?

One example is that you can't be "pro-life" and support the death penalty. The "pro-birth" label covers those people quite nicely.

For the slow Christians out there, thou shalt not kill. If you choose to support killing people and are against abortion, then you are not pro life.

 

[BurnItDwn]

One example is that you can't be "pro-life" and support the death penalty. The "pro-birth" label covers those people quite nicely.

For the slow Christians out there, thou shalt not kill. If you choose to support killing people and are against abortion, then you are not pro life.

These are all "pro life" critera too ...
Fund Food stamps = kids don't starve to death
Fund reduced rate or free school lunch = kids don't starve to death
Fund Medicaid = kids don't die from easily treatable medical problems
Fund single payer health care system = everybody can afford to go to the doctor, less people die from easily preventable deaths
Fund housing the homeless and treating their mental issues = they don't die on the streets

 

[Commodus]

Can you expand on that? How are Republicans only pro-life while in the womb?

Well, here's a good example of the problems with Alabama Republicans:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1130034814915100672

And that's not including the state's support for the death penalty.

You want to say you're pro-life? Abolish the death penalty. Offer well-funded government-run health care for everyone. Mandate sex education and affordable contraceptives. Dramatically improve education funding. In other words, actually take care of people once they're born.

 

[SlowSpyder]

One example is that you can't be "pro-life" and support the death penalty. The "pro-birth" label covers those people quite nicely.

For the slow Christians out there, thou shalt not kill. If you choose to support killing people and are against abortion, then you are not pro life.

I disagree. Arguing that an innocent life not be ended for nothing more than being thrust into existence is a different discussion than application of law and punishment of those guilty of substantial crimes.

 

[Viper1j]

There will be a massive increase in the use of "Safe Haven" laws. Soon as the kid pops out, drop it off at a fire Department station, or hospital, no questions asked. When they hit a point of too many drug addicted, and developmentally disabled babies in the foster/childcare system, the state will collapse under its own fake morality.

I figure 5 years, or 200,000 babies. Whichever comes first.

Just because you force them to have it, it in no way implies that you can force them to keep it.

 

[Commodus]

I disagree. Arguing that an innocent life not be ended for nothing more than being thrust into existence is a different discussion than application of law and punishment of those guilty of substantial crimes.

But that's not what the term refers to. The whole point is supposedly that you consider life sacred and won't end it unless it's absolutely necessary. If you oppose abortion but believe in the death penalty, you're just anti-abortion, not pro-life.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I disagree. Arguing that an innocent life not be ended for nothing more than being thrust into existence is a different discussion than application of law and punishment of those guilty of substantial crimes.

Children are born evil and selfish and they won't take personal responsibillity until many years later. Also, they are born with no assets or wealth so they are a drain on society.

I would think that most conservatives would be pro abortion in order to prevent more poors from existing.

 

[Paratus]

Can you expand on that? How are Republicans only pro-life while in the womb?

Two good examples

Various GOP politicians in the states proposing theses bans:

• Bills only make discarding fertilized embryos illegal if they are in a womb, specifically doesn’t apply to IVF.
• Vetoing legislative amendments tied to the anti-abortion bills that would provide healthcare to the babies of indigent women who can no longer get abortions

 

[sportage]

DING DING DING... I have the solution.

Democrat legislators within those pro-life states need to introduce legislation demanding the state taxpayers provide FULL AND COMPLETE FUNDING establishing safety nets guaranteeing the families and their "forced into birth" children their much needed housing, food, education and healthcare.
100% covered by state taxpayers and continuing from pregnancy thru the age of 18.
If the state pro-lifers insist to ban all abortion, then they must all PAY THE PRICE.
All of them. Every damn taxpayer within the state.
And, at whatever cost required.

THAT, hand in hand with their abortion ban IS THE ONLY WAY.
THEN.... we will just see how truly "CONCERNED" those state taxpayers and those state pro-lifers really are?
If the state is willing to put their tax money where their legislative big mouth is?
To expose if the state really cares about life? Or if their concern is only some pig headed sourced ideology?

We all know how this will play out....
The pro-lifer taxpayers WILL REFUSE to commit one red cent for those poor mothers and their poor child.
They want their abortion bans, however they always refuse their financial obligation that must follow.
THEY want it both ways. You can't have it both ways.
We have a word for those type of people.... hypocrites.
And as bad as hypocrites are, there is nothing worse than a religious hypocrite.

 

[zinfamous]

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 you say we should decide such states along some imaginary line, maybe, where on one side women could chose how to dictate their bodies and their lives, and on the other side, they become properties of the state and fugitives punishable by death if they flee those states (this is actually Georgia's new law, verbatim)?

I'm not sure if that will work out but damn it really fucking sucks that we don't have a past model of this kind of situation that we could study and educate ourselves on whether or not it would work.

Sucks that we burned all those books that are more than 5 years old, right? oh well who cares it doesn't matter. man the torpedoes and fuck the consequences!

 

[zinfamous]

Unlike others here, especially the pro-birth fuckwits, I'll bring a personal experience in to this discussion. Early in our marriage, my wife had to receive treatment for a medical condition. Unfortunately the medical professionals neglected to tell her that the treatment would make her birth control less effective. You can guess what happened. When her doctor found out he told her that it was very likely that the baby would be born with severe deformities. We talked about it and I told her that I would respect her decision. My feelings irrelevant as far as I was concerned, she was the one carrying. She chose to have a abortion and that was the end of it for us. Today in Alabama she would be forced to leave the state and if she couldn't afford to, she would be forced to have the baby.

Despite what religious conservatives think, people don't get pregnant and then have abortions just for fun.

full honesty here: every Alabama legislator that signed that bill should be executed because of their gross desire to allow such situations as yours to proceed as monstrously as they desire them to proceed.

fuck them all to bloody hell, and may God damn their black sous to eternal fire.

You, your wife and your family are now effectively property of the state of Alabama. That is a fact. Some fucking "conservatives" these distended rectums turned out to be.

lol, all of you Alabamans are now property of the state. You fucking ignorant dipshits that supported these shits.

 

[Sunburn74]

Let states decide, let some be restrictive, some not... again, whatever.

People said this about racism and gay marriage.

 

[HomerJS]

People said this about racism and gay marriage.

Southern states still pissed that they must answer to the federal government. "We know perfectly fine how to treat them spooks". "Don't need no Feds tellin' us what to do"

 

[SlowSpyder]

But that's not what the term refers to. The whole point is supposedly that you consider life sacred and won't end it unless it's absolutely necessary. If you oppose abortion but believe in the death penalty, you're just anti-abortion, not pro-life.

Again, I don't agree. I think you're conflating issues. One can be pro-life when it comes to protecting lives of the innocent and still be ok with capital punishment. There is no conflict there. Being pro-life doesn't mean that you have to believe a life can never be taken under any circumstance.

For the record I think abortion should be legal and think this law is too restrictive. But I still can see how someone can be pro-life when it comes to protecting the lives of innocent children, be pro-life in general, but still be for capital punishment. Quite frankly, I don't see how YOU cannot understand this. There isn't any conflict of interest or in logic there. Trying to pretend there is, that's making things to binary, to black and white, ignoring where most of reality happens, in the grey areas inbetween.