Author Topic: Alabama  (Read 8050 times)

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6539
Re: Alabama
« Reply #150 on: May 23, 2019, 11:12:55 AM »
This post rather succinctly summarizes the problem with this discussion.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant.

"You cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into."

Most people who hold strong pro-life views are not pro-lifers because of some rational, logically-consistent thought process. They hold their pro-live views to be axiomatic, a basic truth (stemming from either religious or emotional reasons) that their other views flow from. There is no amount of discussion, evidence, reasoning, logic, or thought experiments that can ever change their minds.

If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent?

They also seem to have little to no respect for anyone who disagrees with them. They sub-humanize them, intentionally and thoroughly. In their mind people who have abortions are not just "unwittingly committing murder", they are murderers, complete with evil intentions and an incapacity to love children.

Thanks DadJokes for pulling back the veil for us.
Succinctly put.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4642
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #151 on: May 23, 2019, 11:28:25 AM »
This post rather succinctly summarizes the problem with this discussion.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant.

"You cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into."

Most people who hold strong pro-life views are not pro-lifers because of some rational, logically-consistent thought process. They hold their pro-live views to be axiomatic, a basic truth (stemming from either religious or emotional reasons) that their other views flow from. There is no amount of discussion, evidence, reasoning, logic, or thought experiments that can ever change their minds.

If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent?

They also seem to have little to no respect for anyone who disagrees with them. They sub-humanize them, intentionally and thoroughly. In their mind people who have abortions are not just "unwittingly committing murder", they are murderers, complete with evil intentions and an incapacity to love children.

Thanks DadJokes for pulling back the veil for us.
Succinctly put.
All you got to do is wander over to the pregnancy and baby thread on this forum to see multiple cases of people who terminate because of love, of desire to have a strong and healthy family, to avoid needless suffering, to save lives, or a million other personal scenarios that cannot be summed up into a few pithy words of a sweeping generalization. Life and death and creating more life is an incredibly complex spectrum fraught with emotions and risks and uncertainties. Personally I feel that people who are unable to appreciate the million shades of gray in these situations is perhaps not adequately mentally prepared for the difficult situations that parenthood will present to those who go down that path.

Jim Fiction

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 152
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Alabama
« Reply #152 on: May 23, 2019, 12:01:57 PM »
I try to stay out of political threads, and I'm probably going to regret wading into this one.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant. My dog began to defend my wife while she was pregnant in the same way she does for the child now, because dogs knew that a new life is present. Attempting to frame the topic as a matter of a woman's choice is absurd and will never sway those who know that an unborn child is a human life.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there). Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy. Add to that concerns about overpopulation, and I just don't see a problem with it.

My Mother-in-law had an abortion shortly after she moved to this country. She already had a child at the time and would later go on to have two more children (including my wife). She is a wonderful mother and general human being and is now a wonderful grandmother to my daughter. Your post is absurd and the positions you hold ignorant and offensive to many on this forum. If abortions weren't so stigmatized in this country (in large part due to people like you), you would likely have already realized this fact for yourself.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1633
Re: Alabama
« Reply #153 on: May 23, 2019, 12:54:06 PM »
I try to stay out of political threads, and I'm probably going to regret wading into this one.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant. My dog began to defend my wife while she was pregnant in the same way she does for the child now, because dogs knew that a new life is present. Attempting to frame the topic as a matter of a woman's choice is absurd and will never sway those who know that an unborn child is a human life.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there). Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy. Add to that concerns about overpopulation, and I just don't see a problem with it.

My Mother-in-law had an abortion shortly after she moved to this country. She already had a child at the time and would later go on to have two more children (including my wife). She is a wonderful mother and general human being and is now a wonderful grandmother to my daughter. Your post is absurd and the positions you hold ignorant and offensive to many on this forum. If abortions weren't so stigmatized in this country (in large part due to people like you), you would likely have already realized this fact for yourself.

Do you know how much I care about you being offended?

I have no problem with what your mother-in-law did. I just don't sugar-coat it by pretending it's anything other than choosing to end a human life.

I think the point you're overlooking is that if someone doesn't believe that a fertilized egg is a human being when they choose an abortion, then this part of your comment doesn't follow - "If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent".

Framing their intent based on your "knowledge" is illogical. A person can only make decisions based on their own knowledge.

If they knew with the same confidence that you have that a fertilized egg is a human and decided to have an abortion, then your comment would make sense.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 12:55:58 PM by Dabnasty »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13367
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #154 on: May 23, 2019, 12:57:00 PM »
That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there)

I think that much of the offense comes from the highlighted line, not from people wanting you to 'sugar coat' your views.  The decision to have an abortion doesn't make someone a bad parent.  As a matter of fact, it even clashes with what you wrote further on:

Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy.

There are indeed many times that having an abortion is a mercy (for instance when a child has a medical condition that will be extremely painful and lead to death soon after born).  You believe that a merciful parent is a bad one?

Jim Fiction

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 152
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Alabama
« Reply #155 on: May 23, 2019, 01:06:56 PM »
I try to stay out of political threads, and I'm probably going to regret wading into this one.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant. My dog began to defend my wife while she was pregnant in the same way she does for the child now, because dogs knew that a new life is present. Attempting to frame the topic as a matter of a woman's choice is absurd and will never sway those who know that an unborn child is a human life.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there). Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy. Add to that concerns about overpopulation, and I just don't see a problem with it.

My Mother-in-law had an abortion shortly after she moved to this country. She already had a child at the time and would later go on to have two more children (including my wife). She is a wonderful mother and general human being and is now a wonderful grandmother to my daughter. Your post is absurd and the positions you hold ignorant and offensive to many on this forum. If abortions weren't so stigmatized in this country (in large part due to people like you), you would likely have already realized this fact for yourself.

Do you know how much I care about you being offended?
I'm guessing empathy isn't your strong suit, sooooo zero?

Quote from: DadJokes
I have no problem with what your mother-in-law did. I just don't sugar-coat it by pretending it's anything other than choosing to end a human life.


You stated that anyone who would choose to have an abortion would be incapable of being a good parent. That's plainly ridiculous. Holding such a position suggests that you do in fact have a problem with what my MIL (and many posters on this forum) did, otherwise you wouldn't make such an absurd blanket statement.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13367
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #156 on: May 23, 2019, 01:24:35 PM »
That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there)

I think that much of the offense comes from the highlighted line, not from people wanting you to 'sugar coat' your views.  The decision to have an abortion doesn't make someone a bad parent.  As a matter of fact, it even clashes with what you wrote further on:

Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy.

There are indeed many times that having an abortion is a mercy (for instance when a child has a medical condition that will be extremely painful and lead to death soon after born).  You believe that a merciful parent is a bad one?

Abortions due to the health of the child or the mother are not what I'm referring to, though those are indeed a mercy.

My argument there is that it is an incredibly selfish action to take a life simply because it is inconvenient to be a parent at that moment, but doing so probably works out in the best interest of the child. Negative actions can have positive results.

Wow.  There's a lot to unpack here.

Do you believe that a woman who is raped by her father, or brother and becomes pregnant is selfish in getting an abortion?

Being a parent isn't momentary.  I fully expect it to be 'inconvenient' for at least 20 years with my own son.  Is this new information to you?

Why is an action in the best interest of a child negative?  I'm really tripping over this bit of reasoning.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13367
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #157 on: May 23, 2019, 02:29:11 PM »

Wow.  There's a lot to unpack here.

Do you believe that a woman who is raped by her father, or brother and becomes pregnant is selfish in getting an abortion?

Victims of rape/incest account for less than 0.5% of abortions, per the Guttmacher Institute. Using that as an excuse is just attempting to distract. While we're on the topic, health of the fetus or mother only account for ~7% of abortions. So two of the biggest arguments used to support abortion (and that even pro-lifers are willing to budge on) account for less than 10% of abortions.

Yeah, but you've been making broad and sweeping statements about all abortion.  So I'm bringing up all abortion cases.  Pro-lifers in Alabama aren't willing to budge on incest and rape.

Did you want me to sugar coat my responses, or are you able to answer the question?



Quote
Being a parent isn't momentary.  I fully expect it to be 'inconvenient' for at least 20 years with my own son.  Is this new information to you?

This doesn't change what I said. In that moment, the woman thinks it will be inconvenient to raise that child, enough so that she is willing to end the child's life. I equate it something similar to suicide, as someone who's towed that line.

I'm not trying to change what you said.  Just pointing out that you're wrong.  Raising a child isn't inconvenient in a moment.  It's inconvenient in 20 years of moments (at least).



Quote
Why is an action in the best interest of a child negative?  I'm really tripping over this bit of reasoning.

Intent. The woman isn't doing it to be merciful to the child. Calling it merciful is just my way of saying, "At least the child didn't have to get raised in a house where he/she isn't loved." However, saying they are always a bad parent was probably wrong on my part.



Can you tell me how you know the the intent (and by extension the minds) of every women who gets an abortion?

For instance, there's the woman who finds out that her child has a medical condition where the child will never be able to lead a pain free life.  There's the woman you discounted above who has been raped.  Or the one who was the victim of incest.  There's the woman who has serious mental health issues that she can't afford to treat.  This list goes on and on, but you continue to discount any case that doesn't directly fit into the narrative that you believe.



I said I'd regret wading into this, and now here I am, arguing with people when we're on the same side of the topic. I'll leave this post up for a bit, then delete everything in this thread so that it doesn't show up in replies to my posts.

We're not arguing about abortion at this point, just the derogatory language and incorrect assumptions hat have been used/made.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Alabama
« Reply #158 on: May 28, 2019, 11:14:40 AM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.

Left intact by the Court was  a ruling by a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down a provision in the Draconian Indiana statute that, at any time during her pregnancy, barred a woman  from choosing abortion on the basis of her fetus's  sex or race, or due to  a diagnosis of Down Syndrome or other disability.

 In support of its ruling the Seventh Circuit Court stated: “These provisions are far greater than a substantial obstacle; they are absolute prohibitions on abortions prior to viability, which the Supreme Court has clearly held cannot be imposed by the state.”

There is an unambiguous, unstated  message in today's Supreme Court decision to let the Seventh Circuit's ruling stand: "It is highly unlikely that  this Court will review challenges to lower court rulings that strike down Alabama's extreme, unconstitutional, anti-abortion statute."

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4642
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Alabama
« Reply #159 on: May 28, 2019, 11:49:57 AM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.


I can only assume you speak from the fortunate position of total ignorance, having never lived through an abortion/loss and been denied a fundamental right to live your life as you see fit. I can speak from the position of having had two second trimester abortions due to in utero fetal demise.

That situation was horrifying and mentally traumatic. The ONLY thing that made the situation more bearable was knowing that I had full control over my options moving forward. You don’t understand it, but the choice to die by fire or by hanging is extraordinarily important. It gives one a sense of control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. A sense of autonomy. A sense of being a conscious human being capable of making decisions that are right for oneself.

In my case I had the right to choose to be induced or to have surgery (therapeutic abortion). I had the right to choose burial/cremation or disposal of medical waste. For me personally being forced to have an induction would have been horrific. My heart is racing now even imagining it. I literally can’t think of anything that would have been more traumatizing in that moment. Not being able to dispose of the remains as medical waste would have been a close second.

Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4702
Re: Alabama
« Reply #160 on: May 28, 2019, 11:50:58 AM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.

Left intact by the Court was  a ruling by a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down a provision in the Draconian Indiana statute that, at any time during her pregnancy, barred a woman  from choosing abortion on the basis of her fetus's  sex or race, or due to  a diagnosis of Down Syndrome or other disability.

 In support of its ruling the Seventh Circuit Court stated: “These provisions are far greater than a substantial obstacle; they are absolute prohibitions on abortions prior to viability, which the Supreme Court has clearly held cannot be imposed by the state.”

There is an unambiguous, unstated  message in today's Supreme Court decision to let the Seventh Circuit's ruling stand: "It is highly unlikely that  this Court will review challenges to lower court rulings that strike down Alabama's extreme, unconstitutional, anti-abortion statute."
That not reasonable nor " minimally burdensome" for many.  Which is why it was put in there.  Given many people could not gather $400, the increase cost could cause someone to not be able to afford the abortion. 

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Alabama
« Reply #161 on: May 28, 2019, 12:10:48 PM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.




I can only assume you speak from the fortunate position of total ignorance, having never lived through an abortion/loss and been denied a fundamental right to live your life as you see fit. I can speak from the position of having had two second trimester abortions due to in utero fetal demise.

That situation was horrifying and mentally traumatic. The ONLY thing that made the situation more bearable was knowing that I had full control over my options moving forward. You don’t understand it, but the choice to die by fire or by hanging is extraordinarily important. It gives one a sense of control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. A sense of autonomy. A sense of being a conscious human being capable of making decisions that are right for oneself.

In my case I had the right to choose to be induced or to have surgery (therapeutic abortion). I had the right to choose burial/cremation or disposal of medical waste. For me personally being forced to have an induction would have been horrific. My heart is racing now even imagining it. I literally can’t think of anything that would have been more traumatizing in that moment. Not being able to dispose of the remains as medical waste would have been a close second.

Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I think I've hurt some of your deepest  feelings.

I apologize.

I ask you to consider accepting my apology.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4642
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #162 on: May 28, 2019, 12:21:26 PM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.




I can only assume you speak from the fortunate position of total ignorance, having never lived through an abortion/loss and been denied a fundamental right to live your life as you see fit. I can speak from the position of having had two second trimester abortions due to in utero fetal demise.

That situation was horrifying and mentally traumatic. The ONLY thing that made the situation more bearable was knowing that I had full control over my options moving forward. You don’t understand it, but the choice to die by fire or by hanging is extraordinarily important. It gives one a sense of control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. A sense of autonomy. A sense of being a conscious human being capable of making decisions that are right for oneself.

In my case I had the right to choose to be induced or to have surgery (therapeutic abortion). I had the right to choose burial/cremation or disposal of medical waste. For me personally being forced to have an induction would have been horrific. My heart is racing now even imagining it. I literally can’t think of anything that would have been more traumatizing in that moment. Not being able to dispose of the remains as medical waste would have been a close second.

Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I think I've hurt some of your deepest  feelings.

I apologize.

I ask you to consider accepting my apology.
You are correct that this touches on the very darkest times in my life, which is why I am so passionate about standing up for the rights of others. Thank you for being willing to listen.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4056
Re: Alabama
« Reply #163 on: May 28, 2019, 12:25:18 PM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.


I can only assume you speak from the fortunate position of total ignorance, having never lived through an abortion/loss and been denied a fundamental right to live your life as you see fit. I can speak from the position of having had two second trimester abortions due to in utero fetal demise.

That situation was horrifying and mentally traumatic. The ONLY thing that made the situation more bearable was knowing that I had full control over my options moving forward. You don’t understand it, but the choice to die by fire or by hanging is extraordinarily important. It gives one a sense of control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. A sense of autonomy. A sense of being a conscious human being capable of making decisions that are right for oneself.

In my case I had the right to choose to be induced or to have surgery (therapeutic abortion). I had the right to choose burial/cremation or disposal of medical waste. For me personally being forced to have an induction would have been horrific. My heart is racing now even imagining it. I literally can’t think of anything that would have been more traumatizing in that moment. Not being able to dispose of the remains as medical waste would have been a close second.

Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thank God you had the right to choose, Ysette.

Indeed, I can think of one good friend who had a similarly horrifying and traumatic situation occur.

To be quite frank, I think being forced to do what this vile court has just upheld might have driven her to the brink of suicide.

TVRodriguez

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: Alabama
« Reply #164 on: May 28, 2019, 12:45:36 PM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.


I can only assume you speak from the fortunate position of total ignorance, having never lived through an abortion/loss and been denied a fundamental right to live your life as you see fit. I can speak from the position of having had two second trimester abortions due to in utero fetal demise.

That situation was horrifying and mentally traumatic. The ONLY thing that made the situation more bearable was knowing that I had full control over my options moving forward. You don’t understand it, but the choice to die by fire or by hanging is extraordinarily important. It gives one a sense of control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. A sense of autonomy. A sense of being a conscious human being capable of making decisions that are right for oneself.

In my case I had the right to choose to be induced or to have surgery (therapeutic abortion). I had the right to choose burial/cremation or disposal of medical waste. For me personally being forced to have an induction would have been horrific. My heart is racing now even imagining it. I literally can’t think of anything that would have been more traumatizing in that moment. Not being able to dispose of the remains as medical waste would have been a close second.

Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I want to thank you for sharing your story.  Unfortunately, there are many people who view "minimally burdensome" many many regulations that are nearly insurmountable burdens for some women.

A dear friend was pregnant with a much-wanted second child when two things happened: her oldest was diagnosed with cancer and tests performed after 20 weeks revealed the fetus to have multiple abnormalities.  She chose to terminate the pregnancy despite wanting a second child very much.  Her oldest survived the cancer and she went on to have 2 more children.  There are many reasons why a woman may choose to end a pregnancy, and none of them need the input of a legislature.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4175
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #165 on: May 28, 2019, 01:42:57 PM »
I can understand rules requiring proper disposal of a body after death: it's partly a matter of public health and partly a check on the ability to hide an unlawful killing.  Neither of those reasons can possibly apply in relation to the products of an abortion lawfully undertaken by medical personnel, which leaves either false sentiment or religiosity as the only reasons.  The Supreme Court fucked up badly on that one.

kei te pai

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
Re: Alabama
« Reply #166 on: May 28, 2019, 02:30:51 PM »
If only those that argue so strongly against abortion would be as passionate about income support for single parents,paid maternity leave, public health care, and opposition to the death penalty.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13367
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #167 on: May 28, 2019, 02:32:57 PM »
If only those that argue so strongly against abortion would be as passionate about income support for single parents,paid maternity leave, public health care, and opposition to the death penalty.

Then the child wouldn't be a punishment for the sin of sex though.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #168 on: May 28, 2019, 03:59:09 PM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.


I can only assume you speak from the fortunate position of total ignorance, having never lived through an abortion/loss and been denied a fundamental right to live your life as you see fit. I can speak from the position of having had two second trimester abortions due to in utero fetal demise.

That situation was horrifying and mentally traumatic. The ONLY thing that made the situation more bearable was knowing that I had full control over my options moving forward. You don’t understand it, but the choice to die by fire or by hanging is extraordinarily important. It gives one a sense of control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. A sense of autonomy. A sense of being a conscious human being capable of making decisions that are right for oneself.

In my case I had the right to choose to be induced or to have surgery (therapeutic abortion). I had the right to choose burial/cremation or disposal of medical waste. For me personally being forced to have an induction would have been horrific. My heart is racing now even imagining it. I literally can’t think of anything that would have been more traumatizing in that moment. Not being able to dispose of the remains as medical waste would have been a close second.

Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thanks for sharing that, Ysette. I can't imagine how difficult that time must have been.

It occurs to me that one of the problems in the debate around this issues (among others), is that because the stories like this are generally not discussed publicly due to their intensely personal and private nature, the debate largely occurs in the abstract. It is much simpler for those who want to legislate pro-life measures to demonize those who get abortions when it is reduced to "there is a heartbeat at X weeks" than to acknowledge to complex stories and decisions. That recognition would not be a panacea, but I think it would go a long ways towards having a more compassionate debate on the topic.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4175
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #169 on: May 28, 2019, 04:15:18 PM »
It occurs to me that one of the problems in the debate around this issues (among others), is that because the stories like this are generally not discussed publicly due to their intensely personal and private nature, the debate largely occurs in the abstract. It is much simpler for those who want to legislate pro-life measures to demonize those who get abortions when it is reduced to "there is a heartbeat at X weeks" than to acknowledge to complex stories and decisions. That recognition would not be a panacea, but I think it would go a long ways towards having a more compassionate debate on the topic.

The anti-abortion people don't want a nuanced and compassionate debate, and don't want to hear real stories.  So we always end up with women baring their souls to tell those stories, trying to tilt the debate as you suggest, only to be overridden or ignored by anti-abortion fanatics who are one step short of declaring every sperm is sacred.   The real life stories might move some individuals, but in order to take the long-term fight to the anti-abortion socio-religious complex the fight has to be on facts and principles.   

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4642
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #170 on: May 28, 2019, 04:18:55 PM »
This morning the Supreme Court upheld an eminently reasonable, minimally burdensome provision in Indiana's otherwise unconstitutional anti-abortion statute.  The high Court upheld a provision that requires cremation or burial of fetal remains.


I can only assume you speak from the fortunate position of total ignorance, having never lived through an abortion/loss and been denied a fundamental right to live your life as you see fit. I can speak from the position of having had two second trimester abortions due to in utero fetal demise.

That situation was horrifying and mentally traumatic. The ONLY thing that made the situation more bearable was knowing that I had full control over my options moving forward. You don’t understand it, but the choice to die by fire or by hanging is extraordinarily important. It gives one a sense of control over an otherwise uncontrollable situation. A sense of autonomy. A sense of being a conscious human being capable of making decisions that are right for oneself.

In my case I had the right to choose to be induced or to have surgery (therapeutic abortion). I had the right to choose burial/cremation or disposal of medical waste. For me personally being forced to have an induction would have been horrific. My heart is racing now even imagining it. I literally can’t think of anything that would have been more traumatizing in that moment. Not being able to dispose of the remains as medical waste would have been a close second.

Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thanks for sharing that, Ysette. I can't imagine how difficult that time must have been.

It occurs to me that one of the problems in the debate around this issues (among others), is that because the stories like this are generally not discussed publicly due to their intensely personal and private nature, the debate largely occurs in the abstract. It is much simpler for those who want to legislate pro-life measures to demonize those who get abortions when it is reduced to "there is a heartbeat at X weeks" than to acknowledge to complex stories and decisions. That recognition would not be a panacea, but I think it would go a long ways towards having a more compassionate debate on the topic.
That is the rub, isn’t it? There are many painful stories like this and much worse, on this forum even. All you have to do is check out some of the other threads. It is so incredibly difficult to live through, let alone get to a place of peace to be able to share. And that isn’t without risk because of the trolls and other heartless people out there who will attacking without an human or empathetic bone in their body. Heck, it is scary posting here and these forums are generally good about having reasonably intelligent and respectful people engaging in reasonably intelligent debate.


I am perfectly happy sharing my story to whenever but I am not willing to read te bullshit from people who can’t be civil humans in return. I have to protect my own mental health.

I will say that the turn this is all taking at the national level is really scary to me. I will absolutely not live or raise my children in a country that can’t respect our fundamental human right to bodily autonomy. Period. I’ll take my educated, rich-ass to a better country.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4056
Re: Alabama
« Reply #171 on: May 28, 2019, 05:25:16 PM »
It occurs to me that one of the problems in the debate around this issues (among others), is that because the stories like this are generally not discussed publicly due to their intensely personal and private nature, the debate largely occurs in the abstract. It is much simpler for those who want to legislate pro-life measures to demonize those who get abortions when it is reduced to "there is a heartbeat at X weeks" than to acknowledge to complex stories and decisions. That recognition would not be a panacea, but I think it would go a long ways towards having a more compassionate debate on the topic.

The anti-abortion people don't want a nuanced and compassionate debate, and don't want to hear real stories.  So we always end up with women baring their souls to tell those stories, trying to tilt the debate as you suggest, only to be overridden or ignored by anti-abortion fanatics who are one step short of declaring every sperm is sacred.   The real life stories might move some individuals, but in order to take the long-term fight to the anti-abortion socio-religious complex the fight has to be on facts and principles.

Exactly. Women suffering yet another damn trauma on top of the one they have already gone through, baring themselves to the public eye, in the hopes that their sacrifice will change things for Women in the aggregate.

When their opponents do not give one single shit about them.

And facts don’t matter to them, either.

I get so fucking angry about this I can hardly speak.

And I, and people like me, will be mocked for our anger. As though our anger somehow proves that we are not rational.

By people who have the privilege of never having to give a shit.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
Re: Alabama
« Reply #172 on: May 29, 2019, 08:43:45 AM »
Until you walk in the shoes of people who have to make these difficult choices and have their autonomy and very human nature debased by these senseless restrictions from people who have no understanding and no heart, please refrain from making uninformed judgements like “minimally burdensome”. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes. Let people live their lives unfettered by rules from the political party that frequently lectures us about democracy and freedom. This whole topic ought to be worked out between a physician and a mother with the maximum number of medical solutions available to them to choose from. Not dancing and dodging various arbitrary roadblocks put in place by conservatives.

If the religious conservatives truly want the best outcome for these babies then they need to focus on providing the best nutrition for these children, help these families find the best housing they can afford, and provide the best education we as a nation can afford. Give all kids the best chance at the best outcomes. Anyone willing to study hard, and work hard ought to have plenty of opportunities to succeed in life. Funny but we don't hear enough about providing for these fetuses after birth which indicates as others have already explained - this is about control more than life vs death.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Alabama
« Reply #173 on: May 29, 2019, 11:13:07 AM »

Yes. Let people live their lives unfettered by rules from the political party that frequently lectures us about democracy and freedom. This whole topic ought to be worked out between a physician and a mother with the maximum number of medical solutions available to them to choose from. Not dancing and dodging various arbitrary roadblocks put in place by conservatives.


"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Justice Brandeis



Regarding  her pursuit of happiness, her autonomy,  her "right to be let alone" as Brandeis put it,   there can be no overstatement of the  primacy of a woman's fundamental right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

The stated, pro-life  position of  "conservatives"  fosters   abridgement of this unalienable liberty that is central and indispensable to the  individual liberty of family matters. 

In my opinion these  conservatives  are putative conservatives.

As a reactionary I am disturbed  by  their failure to champion a woman's "right to be let alone" when she is deliberating  one of  the most consequential and intimate choices of her life.

Choice is the concomitant of liberty (no pun intended).
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 11:22:53 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

six-car-habit

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Alabama
« Reply #174 on: May 29, 2019, 12:00:15 PM »
 John Galt [ and others ] - you seem to be quite informed on laws, lawyering, constitution , etc.  Can you help me understand one thing i can't square away with the Pro-life position / recent state bills restricting abortions ??

 Most of these laws seem to only punish [ with jail time ] the medical provider / doctor / nursing staff . And not the pregnant female [ with jail time ].  I understand the idea that removing 1 doctor and/or 1 medical facilty would result in several pregnant persons losing the option for the proceedure. So its a numbers advantage to go after the provider.
   But why aren't the laws written that both "conspirators " face jail time ??

 *Please no-one get pissed at me for asking this question, i am not advocating the pro-life stance.*

  --  I just don't understand how we hold multiple persons who are parties to a crime equally responsible [ or close to it] in nearly any other felony, and the state can choose to prosecute all involved -but the laws are not written like that on this issue.  What is the reasoning from the lawmakers / law writers ?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13367
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #175 on: May 29, 2019, 12:21:25 PM »
Mostly for efficiency, not legal reasons.

- A woman gets pregnant and tries to have an abortion
- The cops raid the abortion place and arrest the woman and the doctor
- The woman now has a son in prison where she can't look after him.

Conservatives like saving money.  Having the state care for all these unwanted kids they've separated from their mothers would be expensive.  By removing the people who can perform the abortions only, they can force women to have babies AND not have to pay for looking after the babies.  It's way more cost efficient.

Sugaree

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: Alabama
« Reply #176 on: May 29, 2019, 12:37:33 PM »
Mostly for efficiency, not legal reasons.

- A woman gets pregnant and tries to have an abortion
- The cops raid the abortion place and arrest the woman and the doctor
- The woman now has a son in prison where she can't look after him.

Conservatives like saving money.  Having the state care for all these unwanted kids they've separated from their mothers would be expensive.  By removing the people who can perform the abortions only, they can force women to have babies AND not have to pay for looking after the babies.  It's way more cost efficient.

Well, until more and more women start leaving the hospitals without their babies.  How long until the Safe Haven laws get revoked?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4702
Re: Alabama
« Reply #177 on: May 29, 2019, 08:38:14 PM »
John Galt [ and others ] - you seem to be quite informed on laws, lawyering, constitution , etc.  Can you help me understand one thing i can't square away with the Pro-life position / recent state bills restricting abortions ??

 Most of these laws seem to only punish [ with jail time ] the medical provider / doctor / nursing staff . And not the pregnant female [ with jail time ].  I understand the idea that removing 1 doctor and/or 1 medical facilty would result in several pregnant persons losing the option for the proceedure. So its a numbers advantage to go after the provider.
   But why aren't the laws written that both "conspirators " face jail time ??

 *Please no-one get pissed at me for asking this question, i am not advocating the pro-life stance.*

  --  I just don't understand how we hold multiple persons who are parties to a crime equally responsible [ or close to it] in nearly any other felony, and the state can choose to prosecute all involved -but the laws are not written like that on this issue.  What is the reasoning from the lawmakers / law writers ?
Actually the current laws do target women, including women who left the state for an abortion.

six-car-habit

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
Re: Alabama
« Reply #178 on: May 30, 2019, 02:58:10 AM »
 Gin1984 -- Looks like I'll have to dig deeper into the actual bill / law wording on the documents that have recently passed.  I had taken my info from news sites synopsis of the issue / laws. I suppose i should know better to dig deeper into the meat of the legislation, rather than accepting an "overview" of the situation.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Alabama
« Reply #179 on: May 30, 2019, 04:59:45 AM »


 *Please no-one get pissed at me for asking this question, i am not advocating the pro-life stance.*

  --  I just don't understand how we hold multiple persons who are parties to a crime equally responsible [ or close to it] in nearly any other felony, and the state can choose to prosecute all involved -but the laws are not written like that on this issue.  What is the reasoning from the lawmakers / law writers ?

Alabama's execrable anti-abortion statute includes a provision that shields women from criminal and civil liability if they choose to exercise their fundamental right to choose to terminate their pregnancy.

There should be a record of the colloquy among the Alabama  legislators who argued for inclusion of this provision.

This record may reveal their rationale for including it.

If anyone finds it please post it.

Opinions vary as to why women should not be subject to prosecution for having an abortion.

Some say it's more effective  to demonize the physicians who perform abortions.

Others say that anti-abortion legislators and prosecutors know that the public views   prosecution as unduly cruel and that prosecutions would likely result in  jury-nullification acquittals.

My surmise is that the anti-abortion camp's anti-prosecution stance, whether sincere or feigned, is an attempt to make anti-abortion measures less unpalatable.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 05:01:59 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

Sugaree

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: Alabama
« Reply #180 on: May 30, 2019, 05:19:21 AM »
John Galt [ and others ] - you seem to be quite informed on laws, lawyering, constitution , etc.  Can you help me understand one thing i can't square away with the Pro-life position / recent state bills restricting abortions ??

 Most of these laws seem to only punish [ with jail time ] the medical provider / doctor / nursing staff . And not the pregnant female [ with jail time ].  I understand the idea that removing 1 doctor and/or 1 medical facilty would result in several pregnant persons losing the option for the proceedure. So its a numbers advantage to go after the provider.
   But why aren't the laws written that both "conspirators " face jail time ??

 *Please no-one get pissed at me for asking this question, i am not advocating the pro-life stance.*

  --  I just don't understand how we hold multiple persons who are parties to a crime equally responsible [ or close to it] in nearly any other felony, and the state can choose to prosecute all involved -but the laws are not written like that on this issue.  What is the reasoning from the lawmakers / law writers ?
Actually the current laws do target women, including women who left the state for an abortion.

I know that Georgia's proposed laws do target women who leave the state.  I don't think Alabama's do....yet.  But given Alabama's tendency to twist existing laws to suit their needs (i.e. chemical endangerment laws that were written to prosecute people who cook meth around their kids, but have been used more often than not to prosecute women who test positive for drugs after giving birth), it wouldn't surprise me if they don't find a way to use the anti-abortion law that way.

fuzzy math

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • Age: 37
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #181 on: June 02, 2019, 10:45:39 AM »
****possible trigger warning to anyone who has suffered a medically supervised miscarriage or surgery*****






All medical waste is burned. Every hospital has an incinerator because it's not really legally ethical to have contaminated medical waste in a landfill where Ebola or God knows what else could be resurrected. Bloody waste or tissue is placed in a red biohazard container and is forbidden from entering the regular municipal waste supply. Smaller facilities must pay to dispose of it separately. So this "we must have burial rights for the fetus" stuff again is only meant to traumatize women. It's already being cremated, just along with other soiled waste.



Sugaree

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: Alabama
« Reply #182 on: June 03, 2019, 04:50:30 AM »
****possible trigger warning to anyone who has suffered a medically supervised miscarriage or surgery*****






All medical waste is burned. Every hospital has an incinerator because it's not really legally ethical to have contaminated medical waste in a landfill where Ebola or God knows what else could be resurrected. Bloody waste or tissue is placed in a red biohazard container and is forbidden from entering the regular municipal waste supply. Smaller facilities must pay to dispose of it separately. So this "we must have burial rights for the fetus" stuff again is only meant to traumatize women. It's already being cremated, just along with other soiled waste.


I guess my question would be what can/will the hospitals do if people just refuse to claim the "body."  I assume there is a process in place when people die without family. 

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 876
Re: Alabama
« Reply #183 on: June 03, 2019, 06:49:10 AM »
****possible trigger warning to anyone who has suffered a medically supervised miscarriage or surgery*****






All medical waste is burned. Every hospital has an incinerator because it's not really legally ethical to have contaminated medical waste in a landfill where Ebola or God knows what else could be resurrected. Bloody waste or tissue is placed in a red biohazard container and is forbidden from entering the regular municipal waste supply. Smaller facilities must pay to dispose of it separately. So this "we must have burial rights for the fetus" stuff again is only meant to traumatize women. It's already being cremated, just along with other soiled waste.

No trigger warnings here. Read it and deal with it.

 I heard they are trying to prevent the use of fetal material for stem cell research... and my thoigh was "that is dumb but not that big of a deal. I also thought doing burial rights has the effect of humanizing the fetus, which is pointless since the fetus has already been killed at that point. I can see how that would create a traumatizing experience under some circumstances.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4702
Re: Alabama
« Reply #184 on: June 03, 2019, 09:55:49 AM »
****possible trigger warning to anyone who has suffered a medically supervised miscarriage or surgery*****






All medical waste is burned. Every hospital has an incinerator because it's not really legally ethical to have contaminated medical waste in a landfill where Ebola or God knows what else could be resurrected. Bloody waste or tissue is placed in a red biohazard container and is forbidden from entering the regular municipal waste supply. Smaller facilities must pay to dispose of it separately. So this "we must have burial rights for the fetus" stuff again is only meant to traumatize women. It's already being cremated, just along with other soiled waste.


I guess my question would be what can/will the hospitals do if people just refuse to claim the "body."  I assume there is a process in place when people die without family.
Yes, in my state a dead body would be moved to a city or county morgue and held in the cooler until a certain amount of time has passed and then the body is incinerated. So basically it will just cause more cost.