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

[HomerJS]

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.

How can you be pro-life and separate small children from their parents? After all they are innocent, it's the parents who are criminals

How can you abort a pregnancy resulting from rape? After all the rapist is the criminal, the fetus is innocent.


Sounds like an anti-abortion position to me which is not pro-life.

 

[SlowSpyder]

How can you be pro-life and separate small children from their parents? After all they are innocent, it's the parents who are criminals

How can you abort a pregnancy resulting from rape? After all the rapist is the criminal, the fetus is innocent.


Sounds like an anti-abortion position to me which is not pro-life.

How does separating kids from their parents mean one is not prolife? And keep in mind, they are only separated when they come here trying to exploit entry for asylum, not like people are just going around taking kids. Don't want to be separated, it was easy to avoid. None the less, what does one have to do with the other?

I agree, a fetus is a person and has rights or it isn't. Rape not excluded. Again though, living in the real world, I see how they excluded that, but I'll agree with you on this point that it does go backwards from the same logic they use when arguing for protecting the embryo/fetus otherwise.

But, again, I am not anti-abortion. I see both sides as having legit arguments.

 

[HomerJS]

How does separating kids from their parents mean one is not prolife? And keep in mind, they are only separated when they come here trying to exploit entry for asylum, not like people are just going around taking kids. Don't want to be separated, it was easy to avoid. None the less, what does one have to do with the other?

I agree, a fetus is a person and has rights or it isn't. Rape not excluded. Again though, living in the real world, I see how they excluded that, but I'll agree with you on this point that it does go backwards from the same logic they use when arguing for protecting the embryo/fetus otherwise.

But, again, I am not anti-abortion. I see both sides as having legit arguments.

Because you are permanently damaging these children. They will be mentally scarred for the rest of their lives. You couldn't possible be pro life and do this. Remember the children are INNOCENT. It's the parents who committed the potential crimes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.8f473910e82f

 

[Commodus]

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.

I'm not conflating things, I'm saying that "pro-life" is a fundamentally inaccurate term for many of its supporters. You can't really say you're "pro-life" when you believe in killing people who pose no immediate threat. You certainly can't be pro-life if you're an anti-abortion extremist who believes that bombing clinics is justifiable. "Anti-abortion" is a more accurate term that acknowledges the gray areas.

Besides, it's a bit odd to get a lecture on the danger of binary thinking from someone whose entire political belief system depends on it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm not conflating things, I'm saying that "pro-life" is a fundamentally inaccurate term for many of its supporters. You can't really say you're "pro-life" when you believe in killing people who pose no immediate threat. You certainly can't be pro-life if you're an anti-abortion extremist who believes that bombing clinics is justifiable. "Anti-abortion" is a more accurate term that acknowledges the gray areas.

Besides, it's a bit odd to get a lecture on the danger of binary thinking from someone whose entire political belief system depends on it.

No, you're applying the "pro-life" label outside of the context they are using it. They are, on the context of abortion, pro-life, protecting innocent children... how they view it.

 

[HomerJS]

No, you're applying the "pro-life" label outside of the context they are using it. They are, on the context of abortion, pro-life, protecting innocent children... how they view it.

You do not protect innocent children by ripping them from their parents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.8f473910e82f

 

[nOOky]

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.

No, that would be SOCIALISM and that is bad bad bad!

 

[dank69]

We should be devoting 100% of resources to developing the technology to gently remove an unwanted fetus/embryo and implant it inside a man's dickhole so it can feed off him until it can survive outside the dickhole. Then every pro-life male or female can be automatically registered into the pool of people who will carry and raise each person that would have otherwise been aborted as their own child. No limit on quantity.

 

[DarthKyrie]

You do not protect innocent children by ripping them from their parents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.8f473910e82f

Don't you see we are removing them from their parents because their parents put them in danger by trying to seek asylum in America because they were fleeing much worse danger at home due to American foreign policy? If they had just stayed where they were worse off the kids wouldn't have been separated from the parents.

 

[DarthKyrie]

We should be devoting 100% of resources to developing the technology to gently remove an unwanted fetus/embryo and implant it inside a man's dickhole so it can feed off him until it can survive outside the dickhole. Then every pro-life male or female can be automatically registered into the pool of people who will carry and raise each person that would have otherwise been aborted as their own child. No limit on quantity.

This sounds like a hell of an idea dank. Imagine the pain trying to deliver a kid thru your dickhole?

 

[dank69]

This sounds like a hell of an idea dank. Imagine the pain trying to deliver a kid thru your dickhole?

They'll also have the option of slicing that dickhole right open and stapling it back up when done. Anesthesia of course, cause that makes it better.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You do not protect innocent children by ripping them from their parents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.8f473910e82f

The parents are willingly going to a place that they know this will happen. I really, really wish they didn't stop this policy. The Democrats put a stop to a legitimate action to stop sex trafficking because of the feels and to obstruct Trump.

Again, being pro-life, against abortion, has NOTHING to do with separating children from those coming across our border exploiting the asylum loophole.

 

[dank69]

The parents are willingly going to a place that they know this will happen. I really, really wish they didn't stop this policy. The Democrats put a stop to a legitimate action to stop sex trafficking because of the feels and to obstruct Trump.

Again, being pro-life, against abortion, has NOTHING to do with separating children from those coming across our border exploiting the asylum loophole.

The idea that the policy is to stop sex trafficking is as valid as a claim that impeaching Trump would stop sex trafficking.

 

[HomerJS]

The parents are willingly going to a place that they know this will happen. I really, really wish they didn't stop this policy. The Democrats put a stop to a legitimate action to stop sex trafficking because of the feels and to obstruct Trump.

Again, being pro-life, against abortion, has NOTHING to do with separating children from those coming across our border exploiting the asylum loophole.

and a rapist commits his crime knowing he could impregnate a woman. By your definition in both cases INNOCENT children are involved regardless of the circumstance how they got there. Anyone who is so called "pro-life" does not rip small children from their parents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.8f473910e82f

 

[SlowSpyder]

The idea that the policy is to stop sex trafficking is as valid as a claim that impeaching Trump would stop sex trafficking.

There are very few one size fits all answers that totally resolve an issue. Separating families exploiting the asylum loophole at the border may not "stop" human trafficking, but it was a necessary step in that direction. I'm a little upset Trump caved on that, it was sound policy. Rachel Maddow with her crocodile tears and all.

 

[SlowSpyder]

and a rapist commits his crime knowing he could impregnate a woman. By your definition in both cases INNOCENT children are involved regardless of the circumstance how they got there. Anyone who is so called "pro-life" does not rip small children from their parents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b67019fcfe4_story.html?utm_term=.8f473910e82f

I agree, I've already gone over this, rape resulting in a pregnancy, that fetus should be protected the same it is an innocent being in this all if you are on the pro-life side. I already agreed that there is a complete 180 in their logic for that scenario. But, I understand why they didn't push for that in the bill, even though I agree with you that they are going back on their own arguments in that situation.

Again though, that has nada, nilch, NOTHING to do with separating groups at the border to process them and ensure trafficking isn't occurring. These "families" voluntarily came here knowing those circumstances. A large percentage of them separated their family for the journey themselves, anyway. Don't want to be separated? Come here through the legal process. Look at that, I fixed the issue for those families. With that being said, that discussion has nothing to do with being against abortion for seeing the fetus as a human being.

 

[dank69]

I agree, I've already gone over this, rape resulting in a pregnancy, that fetus should be protected the same it is an innocent being in this all if you are on the pro-life side. I already agreed that there is a complete 180 in their logic for that scenario. But, I understand why they didn't push for that in the bill, even though I agree with you that they are going back on their own arguments in that situation.

Again though, that has nada, nilch, NOTHING to do with separating groups at the border to process them and ensure trafficking isn't occurring. These "families" voluntarily came here knowing those circumstances. A large percentage of them separated their family for the journey themselves, anyway. Don't want to be separated? Come here through the legal process. Look at that, I fixed the issue for those families. With that being said, that discussion has nothing to do with being against abortion for seeing the fetus as a human being.

Seeking asylum is the legal process. What do you think happens at that point? We give them a bottle of water and directions to the nearest Home Depot?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Seeking asylum is the legal process. What do you think happens at that point? We give them a bottle of water and directions to the nearest Home Depot?

The groups should be separated then so that it can be ensured that the minors accompanying the adults are not being trafficked, and the people can be vetted. Every reasonable measure to ensure their well-being should be taken. But again, saying one sees a fetus as a human being that shouldn't be murdered for no other reason than being thrust into existence is a completely and totally different discussion that has nothing to do with border security and temporarily separating adults from children that come here seeking asylum.

 

[HomerJS]

I agree, I've already gone over this, rape resulting in a pregnancy, that fetus should be protected the same it is an innocent being in this all if you are on the pro-life side. I already agreed that there is a complete 180 in their logic for that scenario. But, I understand why they didn't push for that in the bill, even though I agree with you that they are going back on their own arguments in that situation.

Again though, that has nada, nilch, NOTHING to do with separating groups at the border to process them and ensure trafficking isn't occurring. These "families" voluntarily came here knowing those circumstances. A large percentage of them separated their family for the journey themselves, anyway. Don't want to be separated? Come here through the legal process. Look at that, I fixed the issue for those families. With that being said, that discussion has nothing to do with being against abortion for seeing the fetus as a human being.

If you are pro-life then you are pro-life. You people created the definition of defending INNOCENT children. You are defending the position of anti-abortion. At least be honest.

Yes the circumstances are completely different but both result in INNOCENT children being harmed. Doesn't matter how they got there.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you are pro-life then you are pro-life. You people created the definition of defending INNOCENT children. You are defending the position of anti-abortion. At least be honest.

Yes the circumstances are completely different but both result in INNOCENT children being harmed. Doesn't matter how they got there.

For the nth time, I agree with you on this, some of them (and this legislation) turns around on their own logic when it comes to assault/rape. I get why they didn't put it in the bill, but the fetus is an innocent human being deserving protection or it isn't. It didn't choose which sperm and egg come together to create it.

And again, INNOCENT children being brought here are not being killed for no other reason than existing. That has nothing to do with being pro-life. Your first argument about rape, sure. Totally related and valid. About separating families? Nope.

 

[dank69]

The groups should be separated then so that it can be ensured that the minors accompanying the adults are not being trafficked, and the people can be vetted. Every reasonable measure to ensure their well-being should be taken. But again, saying one sees a fetus as a human being that shouldn't be murdered for no other reason than being thrust into existence is a completely and totally different discussion that has nothing to do with border security and temporarily separating adults from children that come here seeking asylum.

Okay so...guilty until proven innocent? And separating thousands of children from their real parents is necessary in case what percentage are not actually related but victims of sex trafficking? 0.1% maybe if we are being generous? Why is this preferable to just asking the minors if they are victims of sex trafficking?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Okay so...guilty until proven innocent? And separating thousands of children from their real parents is necessary in case what percentage are not actually related but victims of sex trafficking? 0.1% maybe if we are being generous? Why is this preferable to just asking the minors if they are victims of sex trafficking?

How is it guilt? It is vetting. The rates I've seen are much higher than you seem willing to accept. If Canada separated families at the border, and I didn't want that done to my family, I can same myself from this by not trying to seek asylum at that country, but instead immigrate their through legal channels. See how easy that is to fix?

And for argument's sake, let's see... tens of thousands a month x .01... why don't you care about those victims?

 

[dank69]

How is it guilt? It is vetting. The rates I've seen are much higher than you seem willing to accept. If Canada separated families at the border, and I didn't want that done to my family, I can same myself from this by not trying to seek asylum at that country, but instead immigrate their through legal channels. See how easy that is to fix?

And for argument's sake, let's see... tens of thousands a month x .01... why don't you care about those victims?

It is guilt because you are separating them as if they are all trafficking victims until you verify that they are not victims. But you've solved all their problems. Just don't need asylum. Not sure why they didn't think of that sooner.

And for the sake of argument, I care about all the victims. All they have to do is say they are a victim and we can separate them immediately. Everybody wins except for the sex traffickers.

 

[zinfamous]

For the nth time, I agree with you on this, some of them (and this legislation) turns around on their own logic when it comes to assault/rape. I get why they didn't put it in the bill, but the fetus is an innocent human being deserving protection or it isn't. It didn't choose which sperm and egg come together to create it.

And again, INNOCENT children being brought here are not being killed for no other reason than existing. That has nothing to do with being pro-life. Your first argument about rape, sure. Totally related and valid. About separating families? Nope.

but smoking. and stuff.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It is guilt because you are separating them as if they are all trafficking victims until you verify that they are not victims. But you've solved all their problems. Just don't need asylum. Not sure why they didn't think of that sooner.

And for the sake of argument, I care about all the victims. All they have to do is say they are a victim and we can separate them immediately. Everybody wins except for the sex traffickers.

They're in such need of asylum they can travel freely in wide open spaces in widely publicized caravans... must be great danger they face in their home countries.