GOP in Alabama attempting to end all abortions and birth control

[nehalem256]

If people want to have sex, they should be prepared for the product which sex uniquely brings about. It's that simple.

Liberals believe that only men should have to be prepared. They have no problem with forcing men to be responsible for a choice that according to them is up to the woman :\

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread is a year old now. Why don't you update us on what factually happened to this legislation minus partisanship?

Again, did your predictions come true? Why or why not?

 

[jackstar7]

Liberals believe that only men should have to be prepared. They have no problem with forcing men to be responsible for a choice that according to them is up to the woman :\

Are you an authority on what liberals believe?

Or is this more of your male victimhood?

 

[kage69]

Abortion is the calculated, premeditated killing of an innocent. Casualties of war, especially civilian casualties of war, are at worst no different than abortion, and at best accidental and unintended. In most cases, wars are conducted with the intent of minimizing civilian casualties. Abortion is conducted with the explicit intent of killing one's own child.

Again with the black and white. Abortion can also be the calculated, premeditated saving of an innocent mother. It's said that innocent civilian casualties (aka "collateral") are practically unavoidable in war, yet warfare itself is quite calculated and premeditated. This acceptance about war is pretty much the same thing anti-choice people need to apply to abortion rights. It's going to happen, but let's try to minimize it as much as possible.
But again, children are born. When we start issuing social security numbers and certificates of "personhood" to an 8 week old fetus (lets not forget tax deductions for the parents!), do let me know and we can pick this up.
The mother is the citizen here, like it or not. If you choose to see her exercising personal liberty irt her own body as the same thing as a women throwing her 3year old off a bridge, well, go ahead.[/QUOTE]

Expecting someone who objects to murder to adopt the victim or shut up is indeed astonishing.

It's her body at that point, if in the unfortunate position of having an abortion she is a murderer, then it's in the same sense you are a murderer after drawing a map of the Hawaiian Islands on your wife's stomach. The same way Nature is a murderer for around half of fertilized eggs being reabsorbed into the womb or expelled.
No one is saying that disagreement here equals the need to personally get involved and adopt someone, but for the sake of ideological consistency they should be supporting programs that reduce the need for abortions. Not actively attacking and defunding them!
I seem to recall a number of people having a problem with the imminent murder of Iraqi civilians, and the response from the very pro-invasion Bill O'Reilly and other pundits was just that, "Shut up! (and get out the way)" No adoption involved obviously but I think you get the idea.

I've nothing against helping mothers cope with single-motherhood.

Cool.

Abortion, however, is an unacceptable weapon in that arsenal.

I can respect that even if I don't agree with it. To return to the warfare theme, I liken it to the use of nukes. Definitely not something you ever want to use, but you don't want to be without it if the chips are really down either. Sometimes, they are necessary (hordes of suicidal troops to fight with little hope of them surrendering, pinching off a horrible oil leak like the Russians did, or hell, maybe even *cough* using a low yield variety to take out hard to get at underground fortifications.

No. For those who are raped, I pass no judgment on those who choose to abort.

Then I commend you for that. I know many that don't choose to recognize that distinction. Guess you're not a Catholic?

No. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill someone because it will ease your pain.

Pain? I'm talking about the possible death of the mother. That 9 year old Brazilian girl wasn't given an abortion because they thought it would be painful. Is there such thing as a pain free birth?? Not according to the mothers I know.

Whenever someone is sticking to convictions, the easiest rejoinder is to accuse them of having a black and white view of the issue. No issue of our time is more clear than abortion when it is stripped of all its emotional appeals. It's black and white at its basis. It's only those who wish to obscure that who insist on seeing shades of gray where there exist none.

Disagree completely.
You just submitted an exception regarding rape, doesn't sound like you're sticking to the conviction that abortion is "unacceptable" in a black or white sense at all. Guess I was wrong about you, but that you're wrong about this color scheme too.
I'm all for stripping the emotional appeals out of the debate, you'll notice I wasn't the one to bring "murder" and "innocent" into this.
Forget for a moment the 'black and white' description, you are not addressing the notion that anti-choice advocates think they can dictate what other adults do to their bodies. Stripped of emotional appeals this is an issue of liberty, and you are in the camp that says to others "I don't care if it's your body, my values trump your rights."



Fuck that.

 

[Aikouka]

Again, did your predictions come true? Why or why not?

Yeah. I'm rather annoyed that someone keeps bumping this, and doesn't tell me what's going on in my own backyard! The gall of some people thinking I should inform myself!

(Note: the informing part is in no relation to the quoted post)

 

[nehalem256]

Are you an authority on what liberals believe?

Or is this more of your male victimhood?

Apparently I am such an authority.

Note that you didnt say I was wrong, but were merely attempting to use misdirection to avoid attention on the truth of what liberals believe.

 

[Atreus21]

By 'black and white' do you mean you feel it should be resolved for everyone?

Also, I don't agree that abortion is always wrong as a rule. Lots of folks don't. So what's resolved for you still includes a lot more complexity that either you do not see or have chosen to dismiss.

I'm either right or I'm wrong. The fact that people disagree with my position doesn't imply that I'm wrong, or that they're right. I'm sure people found lots of nuance and complexity with a number of issues throughout history. The fact that an issue is made to seem complex is irrelevant.

 

[Atreus21]

Again with the black and white. Abortion can also be the calculated, premeditated saving of an innocent mother.

What do you mean by innocent mother? If nothing short of her life is at stake, she is at liberty to preserve it by using abortion. No reasonable person argues otherwise.

It's said that innocent civilian casualties (aka "collateral") are practically unavoidable in war, yet warfare itself is quite calculated and premeditated. This acceptance about war is pretty much the same thing anti-choice people need to apply to abortion rights. It's going to happen, but let's try to minimize it as much as possible.

To equate war with abortion is hilarious. Lives lost by civilians in battle are accidental. Those lost by abortion are not. They are targeted for extermination, and the order is carried out. A better comparison is between abortion and the My Lai massacre.

But again, children are born. When we start issuing social security numbers and certificates of "personhood" to an 8 week old fetus (lets not forget tax deductions for the parents!), do let me know and we can pick this up.

So what argument do you have against killing a child when it's 5 seconds removed from the womb, prior to the signing of the documentation necessary to establish "personhood"?

The mother is the citizen here, like it or not. If you choose to see her exercising personal liberty irt her own body as the same thing as a women throwing her 3year old off a bridge, well, go ahead.

No one under any circumstances has or should have the personal liberty to murder an innocent.

It's her body at that point, if in the unfortunate position of having an abortion she is a murderer, then it's in the same sense you are a murderer after drawing a map of the Hawaiian Islands on your wife's stomach. The same way Nature is a murderer for around half of fertilized eggs being reabsorbed into the womb or expelled.

If nature expels a fertilized egg through its own process, no one has done anything wrong. A mother can't control it, neither can anyone else.

No one is saying that disagreement here equals the need to personally get involved and adopt someone, but for the sake of ideological consistency they should be supporting programs that reduce the need for abortions. Not actively attacking and defunding them!

Really. Should we be supporting anti-poverty programs as a prerequisite to outlawing theft? Or murder? Should we give societal sanction to theft on the basis that sometimes it's necessary, and not work toward criminalizing it until it becomes less frequent?

I seem to recall a number of people having a problem with the imminent murder of Iraqi civilians, and the response from the very pro-invasion Bill O'Reilly and other pundits was just that, "Shut up! (and get out the way)" No adoption involved obviously but I think you get the idea.

Murder is a charge too serious to apply to casualties of war, except as I said in cases of gross misconduct such as the My Lai massacre: when innocent civilians are deliberately targeted for killing, THAT is murder. I don't call the pilot of a bomber a murderer when a civilian on the ground is accidentally killed in wartime.

I can respect that even if I don't agree with it. To return to the warfare theme, I liken it to the use of nukes. Definitely not something you ever want to use, but you don't want to be without it if the chips are really down either. Sometimes, they are necessary (hordes of suicidal troops to fight with little hope of them surrendering, pinching off a horrible oil leak like the Russians did, or hell, maybe even *cough* using a low yield variety to take out hard to get at underground fortifications.

Then I commend you for that. I know many that don't choose to recognize that distinction. Guess you're not a Catholic?

I am Catholic. I wish I was more Catholic. Rape, however, is one of the two cases when a woman can legitimately claim self defense as her motivation to abort. I'm uneasy in my conscience about forcing a woman to live with a condition which she had no part in creating, even if that means someone must die. If the church disagrees with me, so be it.

Pain? I'm talking about the possible death of the mother. That 9 year old Brazilian girl wasn't given an abortion because they thought it would be painful. Is there such thing as a pain free birth?? Not according to the mothers I know.

In the event of a threat to the mother's life, abortion is acceptable.

Disagree completely.
You just submitted an exception regarding rape, doesn't sound like you're sticking to the conviction that abortion is "unacceptable" in a black or white sense at all. Guess I was wrong about you, but that you're wrong about this color scheme too.
I'm all for stripping the emotional appeals out of the debate, you'll notice I wasn't the one to bring "murder" and "innocent" into this.
Forget for a moment the 'black and white' description, you are not addressing the notion that anti-choice advocates think they can dictate what other adults do to their bodies. Stripped of emotional appeals this is an issue of liberty, and you are in the camp that says to others "I don't care if it's your body, my values trump your rights."

We already dictate what people can and can't do with their bodies. That's the nature of laws in general. You may not use your body to inflict harm on an innocent except in very specific circumstances. Abortion falls within the purview of that restriction.

My values don't trump anyone's rights. A child's right to life trumps his or her mother's right to a stress-free existence.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm either right or I'm wrong. The fact that people disagree with my position doesn't imply that I'm wrong, or that they're right. I'm sure people found lots of nuance and complexity with a number of issues throughout history. The fact that an issue is made to seem complex is irrelevant.

Why the binary approach?

 

[jackstar7]

Apparently I am such an authority.

Note that you didnt say I was wrong, but were merely attempting to use misdirection to avoid attention on the truth of what liberals believe.

You're going to make assertions based on what I don't say?

Wow.

Make sure you clean up when you finish, please.

 

[kage69]

What do you mean by innocent mother? If nothing short of her life is at stake, she is at liberty to preserve it by using abortion. No reasonable person argues otherwise.

My mistake, it was an unnecessary adjective. My point was your emphasis on the fetus does not represent the total picture.

To equate war with abortion is hilarious. Lives lost by civilians in battle are accidental. Those lost by abortion are not. They are targeted for extermination, and the order is carried out. A better comparison is between abortion and the My Lai massacre.

I'm not really trying to convince you that abortion is war, and I'm not going to bother with showing you examples of conflicts in which civilians HAVE been targeted, or times when civilian casualties were expected by the military yet tolerated due to the value of the target and/or mission. And your comparison sucks, you're trying to compare a woman exorcising control over her own reproductive health with war crimes? How many fetuses were killed at My Lai? What personal rights of those soldiers were being infringed upon (let's forget their notion of the village giving aid and shelter to the Cong for the sake of argument)

So what argument do you have against killing a child when it's 5 seconds removed from the womb, prior to the signing of the documentation necessary to establish "personhood"?

At that point it wouldn't be abortion, it would be murder because the child has been born. Pretty straight forward really. Documentation isn't a prerequisite for personhood. Saying goodbye to the womb and it's resources is, however.

No one under any circumstances has or should have the personal liberty to murder an innocent.

Sounds good in theory, but what if that innocent is about to cause your death, or the death of a family member? Even that circumstance? Would you not pass judgment if those that were saved were also innocent?

Getting so tired of that argument. If nature expels a fertilized egg through its own process, no one has done anything wrong. A mother can't control it, neither can anyone else.

Well I'm tired of absolutist positions that don't mesh well with the real world. I'll take you avoiding the other part as confirmation that you are not in fact a Catholic, as you don't apparently believe 'every sperm is sacred.' Despite them being "alive"....

Really. Should we be supporting anti-poverty programs as a prerequisite to outlawing theft? Or murder? Should we give societal sanction to theft on the basis that sometimes it's necessary, and not work toward criminalizing it until it becomes less frequent?.

Anti-poverty programs should be supported because poverty has this chain reaction affect on other areas. Your poser fails in that theft is already illegal and no one claims it interferes with their personal liberty (at least with perpetrators I mean)
Abortion is legal, and preventing access to it disenfranchises women of the right of self-determination. How about we treat women like first class citizens and sentient adults and afford them the same consideration men demand? We are talking about "choice" here, not a mandate. As the saying goes, 'Against abortion? Don't have one.'

Murder is a charge too serious to apply to casualties of war, except as I said in cases of gross misconduct such as the My Lai massacre: when innocent civilians are deliberately targeted for killing, THAT is murder. I don't call the pilot of a bomber a murderer when a civilian on the ground is accidentally killed in wartime.

Sez you. I have German friends who would disagree. Guess you've never heard about William Bomber Harris and his turning Dresden into a pile of molten concrete. How about Curt LeMay's firebombing of Tokyo? Both missions were launched with full knowledge that they would produce enormous civilian casualties. Hardly accidental.


So now that I have personal memories related to the topic fresh in my mind, combined with the images I recollect of Dresden in particular, I'm good n depressed now and am just going to stop here and head home. There is a grill I must do battle with, and some French beer I've been saving for when that grill is clean enough to use.


Happy Memorial Day weekend all!



Edit: I see you redid your post, but I'm out of time here. I'm going to leave it at (again) a child is born.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Don't worry, I'm sure all the small government, pro-personal responsibility Republicans nation-wide will be protesting this in no time!

The next one of these that I meet will be the first one that I've met.

 

[polarmystery]

Originally Posted by Atreus21

How does society benefit from allowing mothers to kill their own children?

I'll just leave this right here:

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime