The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Glenstache on May 15, 2019, 11:16:56 PM

Title: Alabama
Post by: Glenstache on May 15, 2019, 11:16:56 PM
So, it turns out that elections matter.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: oldtoyota on May 15, 2019, 11:21:41 PM
They do.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: soccerluvof4 on May 16, 2019, 03:28:10 AM
 Yuuup!
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 16, 2019, 03:35:15 AM
Yes, I thought you lot abolished slavery in 1865.  Better late than never, right?

Except that it turns out to be never, unless someone can explain to me how raping a woman (or underaged girl), her getting pregnant as a result and then being required by law to carry the foetus to term, is different from slavery.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 16, 2019, 04:08:43 AM
I really really wish men could get pregnant.

And I  would love to know what middle and upper class women who support this legislation who end up with unwanted pregnancies will do.  Or since they can afford to travel, is this aimed at really second class citizens.  I.e. poor women?

It seems really clear that the US is the home of the free only if you are male and white.  Bastion of liberty, bah humbug.


I should note that if I had posted when I first heard this news this post would have been nothing but swear words along the lines of stupid fucking idiots, you would feel right at home in Iran. But I am calmer now.

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: marty998 on May 16, 2019, 04:16:27 AM
The news clip shown down here of that decision was a video of the legislature chamber filled with old white men talking about the will of god or some such.

Lovely separation between church and state being demonstrated there.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: FIREstache on May 16, 2019, 04:54:20 AM
So, it turns out that elections matter.

Yes!  :)

God bless America.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Dancin'Dog on May 16, 2019, 05:16:44 AM
MAGA...



Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Khaetra on May 16, 2019, 06:10:48 AM
MAGA...

Morons Are Governing Again?  Indeed.

I really can't understand how any woman can vote for these fuckwits and sleep at night.  I truly just don't get it.  It's like they are voting against their own best interests and for what?  'Bama is a very poor state all around and healthcare is not the greatest.  I really hate to think how many women will die, how many will commit suicide while pregnant and how many just might kill their babies if they are raped and now forced to carry to term, just because a group of old people decided it so.

EDIT: Someone didn't care for my original description, so we'll just leave it at old people.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree on May 16, 2019, 06:31:32 AM
Try living here.  This was absolutely the nail in the coffin for me going ahead to make the decision to have my tubes tied.  I'm sick about it.  I could easily say "fuck it, I have a passport and an emergency fund, if I had to I could just go to NY or Canada."  But considering how many Americans can't even scrape together $400 for an emergency, and I suspect that number in AL is even higher, I think that this is going to affect a lot more than just poor women.  The ones who voted for these assholes just don't realize it yet.  At least we haven't outlawed leaving the state for the procedure....yet.  I see a return of the underground railroad.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Dancin'Dog on May 16, 2019, 06:34:59 AM
MAGA...

Morons Are Governing Again?  Indeed.

I really can't understand how any woman can vote for these fuckwits and sleep at night.  I truly just don't get it.  It's like they are voting against their own best interests and for what?  'Bama is a very poor state all around and healthcare is not the greatest.  I really hate to think how many women will die, how many will commit suicide while pregnant and how many just might kill their babies if they are raped and now forced to carry to term, just because a group of old white men and one old shriveled up bitch as Gov decided it so.


Those were the words that I was looking for.


Putin has to be thrilled with how effective his investment in Trump has been. 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: NotJen on May 16, 2019, 07:03:53 AM
I really can't understand how any woman can vote for these fuckwits and sleep at night.  I truly just don't get it.  It's like they are voting against their own best interests and for what?  'Bama is a very poor state all around and healthcare is not the greatest.  I really hate to think how many women will die, how many will commit suicide while pregnant and how many just might kill their babies if they are raped and now forced to carry to term, just because a group of old white men and one old shriveled up bitch as Gov decided it so.

Right?  I voted against all these jackasses, and I’m the one who’s losing sleep over this.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 16, 2019, 07:07:54 AM
I really can't understand how any woman can vote for these fuckwits and sleep at night.  I truly just don't get it.  It's like they are voting against their own best interests and for what?  'Bama is a very poor state all around and healthcare is not the greatest.  I really hate to think how many women will die, how many will commit suicide while pregnant and how many just might kill their babies if they are raped and now forced to carry to term, just because a group of old white men and one old shriveled up bitch as Gov decided it so.

Right?  I voted against all these jackasses, and I’m the one who’s losing sleep over this.

There are a limited number of ways for the oppressed to survive the patriarchy and alignment/assimilation is probably the biggie.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 16, 2019, 08:31:37 AM
Try living here.  This was absolutely the nail in the coffin for me going ahead to make the decision to have my tubes tied.  I'm sick about it.  I could easily say "fuck it, I have a passport and an emergency fund, if I had to I could just go to NY or Canada."  But considering how many Americans can't even scrape together $400 for an emergency, and I suspect that number in AL is even higher, I think that this is going to affect a lot more than just poor women.  The ones who voted for these assholes just don't realize it yet.  At least we haven't outlawed leaving the state for the procedure....yet.  I see a return of the underground railroad.

Yeah, I think I’m going to have to do the same, before my state’s illegally gerrymandered GOP legislature bans abortion via veto-proof legislature. Husband and I are infertile (15 years, no pregnancy) but we don’t know which of us is actually infertile. If it’s him and I’m ever raped, I can’t count on being able to have an abortion in this country. If I did, I might the risk of incurring more severe penalties than my rapist.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: FrugalToque on May 16, 2019, 09:16:02 AM
Yeah, I think I’m going to have to do the same, before my state’s illegally gerrymandered GOP legislature bans abortion via veto-proof legislature. Husband and I are infertile (15 years, no pregnancy) but we don’t know which of us is actually infertile. If it’s him and I’m ever raped, I can’t count on being able to have an abortion in this country. If I did, I might the risk of incurring more severe penalties than my rapist.

Now all you have to do is find a GP that will allow you to tie your tubes.  I've heard tell that doctors think they know better than women.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 16, 2019, 09:18:05 AM
Yeah, I think I’m going to have to do the same, before my state’s illegally gerrymandered GOP legislature bans abortion via veto-proof legislature. Husband and I are infertile (15 years, no pregnancy) but we don’t know which of us is actually infertile. If it’s him and I’m ever raped, I can’t count on being able to have an abortion in this country. If I did, I might the risk of incurring more severe penalties than my rapist.

Now all you have to do is find a GP that will allow you to tie your tubes.  I've heard tell that doctors think they know better than women.

I'm in my 40s, so that at least will carry some weight. It is much more difficult for younger women.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: kei te pai on May 16, 2019, 09:38:20 AM
What access is there to the "morning after pill" in Alabama? In fact what is access to contraception like generally?
Can you buy online? I know women in Ireland used to obtain MOP from the UK, prior to liberalisation.
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree on May 16, 2019, 09:52:16 AM
What access is there to the "morning after pill" in Alabama? In fact what is access to contraception like generally?
Can you buy online? I know women in Ireland used to obtain MOP from the UK, prior to liberalisation.
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.

It's available, assuming that you live somewhere where the pharmacist isn't opposed to it somehow.  It's also only 75% effective.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 16, 2019, 10:14:20 AM
What access is there to the "morning after pill" in Alabama? In fact what is access to contraception like generally?
Can you buy online? I know women in Ireland used to obtain MOP from the UK, prior to liberalisation.
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.

It's available, assuming that you live somewhere where the pharmacist isn't opposed to it somehow.  It's also only 75% effective.

75%?

WebMD cites 95% effectiveness if taken within 24 hours and up to 89% effectiveness if taken within 72 hours.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree on May 16, 2019, 10:39:14 AM
What access is there to the "morning after pill" in Alabama? In fact what is access to contraception like generally?
Can you buy online? I know women in Ireland used to obtain MOP from the UK, prior to liberalisation.
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.

It's available, assuming that you live somewhere where the pharmacist isn't opposed to it somehow.  It's also only 75% effective.

75%?

WebMD cites 95% effectiveness if taken within 24 hours and up to 89% effectiveness if taken within 72 hours.


It must be more effective now than it was when I was in college.  The idea was that it works by stopping or delaying ovulation.  If you took it after the egg was already released then it didn't work.  Since an egg could be fertilized up until a week after ovulation it was determined that there was one week out of four that it wouldn't work.  I wonder if some other hormone has been added to it now.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 16, 2019, 10:42:16 AM
What access is there to the "morning after pill" in Alabama? In fact what is access to contraception like generally?
Can you buy online? I know women in Ireland used to obtain MOP from the UK, prior to liberalisation.
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.

It's available, assuming that you live somewhere where the pharmacist isn't opposed to it somehow.  It's also only 75% effective.

75%?

WebMD cites 95% effectiveness if taken within 24 hours and up to 89% effectiveness if taken within 72 hours.


It must be more effective now than it was when I was in college.  The idea was that it works by stopping or delaying ovulation.  If you took it after the egg was already released then it didn't work.  Since an egg could be fertilized up until a week after ovulation it was determined that there was one week out of four that it wouldn't work.  I wonder if some other hormone has been added to it now.
I thought it stopped a fertilised egg from implanting - which is why some doctors and pharmacists won't prescribe it, because they consider it a potential abortifacient for that reason.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 16, 2019, 10:50:02 AM
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.

Yeah, I think that possibility is written into the recent Georgia law, and there was a high-profile case in Indiana a couple of years ago. It's a real concern.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Fireball on May 16, 2019, 10:53:47 AM
Listen, I'm no fan of abortion, but to force victims of rape and incest to carry to term is absolutely monstrous.  Here's to the SC hopefully striking these laws down(50/50 shot at best though).
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Nick_Miller on May 16, 2019, 10:56:06 AM
Georgia. Ohio. Now Missouri. Soon lots of others.

It's easy to blame Trump for much of this, but the reality is that all he's done is give them political cover and embolden them to do what they already wanted to do.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 16, 2019, 10:57:29 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 16, 2019, 10:57:36 AM
Georgia. Ohio. Now Missouri. Soon lots of others.

It's easy to blame Trump for much of this, but the reality is that all he's done is give them political cover and embolden them to do what they already wanted to do.

I'm 41, and the GOP has been working toward this my entire life. It's why they've cheated to rig state and federal congressional districts in so many states, including mine.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 16, 2019, 10:58:50 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

It isn't, unless you view women as chattel and nothing more than glorified incubators.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 16, 2019, 11:04:08 AM
Georgia. Ohio. Now Missouri. Soon lots of others.

It's easy to blame Trump for much of this, but the reality is that all he's done is give them political cover and embolden them to do what they already wanted to do.

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this. 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: PoutineLover on May 16, 2019, 11:04:40 AM
I'm so sad and angry that this bill passed, voted on entirely by men. And that governor is a traitor to all women. I feel so lucky to live in Canada, but i still feel terrible for all the women and children who will suffer because of this heartless bill.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Louisville on May 16, 2019, 11:06:20 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: FrugalToque on May 16, 2019, 11:08:39 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Having dealt with this before, I can give you a vague idea of the answers.
a) she had sex and surrendered rights to her body at that point (consequences!)
b) she tried to enjoy sex and this is what she deserves (punishment!)
c) she doesn't matter because the baby counts as fully human (she's irrelevant!), so unless the pregnancy is sure to kill her, the pregnancy goes through.

Toque.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: FrugalToque on May 16, 2019, 11:10:11 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

The "Double Effect",  I think.

It's why we're okay with switching a trolley from the track with 5 people to the track with 1 person.
And we're not okay with pushing a fat guy off a bridge to slow the trolley down and save the 5 people farther along the track.

Toque.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 16, 2019, 11:11:45 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree on May 16, 2019, 11:15:04 AM
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.

Yeah, I think that possibility is written into the recent Georgia law, and there was a high-profile case in Indiana a couple of years ago. It's a real concern.

It's been happening in Alabama for years under the "Chemical Endangerment" laws that were meant to prosecute people who cooked meth around their kids.  Now if a woman has a miscarriage and tests positive for anything that "could have" caused the miscarriage, she can be prosecuted (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/the-criminalization-of-bad-mothers.html). In fact, as far as I know, all mothers who give birth in a hospital, and their babies, are drug tested and if both test positive a charge is sent to the grand jury (I sat on the GJ last month and heard such a case). 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: NotJen on May 16, 2019, 11:21:02 AM
I'm so sad and angry that this bill passed, voted on entirely by men. And that governor is a traitor to all women.

And we KNEW before her election she was not on the side of women.  During the Roy Moore debacle, she stated something along the lines that she "believed" the women who came out against him, but still was going to vote for him because he'd be the best for our state.  W. T. F.

What access is there to the "morning after pill" in Alabama? In fact what is access to contraception like generally?

I believe in general our access is the same as the rest of the US.  My friends and I have not had issues getting a wide range of contraception.  Though, to be fair, we are "rich" white women living in a good-sized city. 

Having dealt with this before, I can give you a vague idea of the answers.
a) she had sex and surrendered rights to her body at that point (consequences!)
b) she tried to enjoy sex and this is what she deserves (punishment!)
c) she doesn't matter because the baby counts as fully human (she's irrelevant!), so unless the pregnancy is sure to kill her, the pregnancy goes through.

Toque.

Exactly.  I think I've finally been able to come up with my simple position on this:  I am for bodily autonomy for women.  I'm against sex shaming of women.  Anything else is up to the individual woman to decide for herself and I won't argue.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Nick_Miller on May 16, 2019, 11:22:12 AM
Georgia. Ohio. Now Missouri. Soon lots of others.

It's easy to blame Trump for much of this, but the reality is that all he's done is give them political cover and embolden them to do what they already wanted to do.

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Any GOP President would have given them that. You don't think Rubio or Kasich or ...gag...Cruz would have given them the same thing?

My point is that the GOP was vile before Trump, and they'll be vile after.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 16, 2019, 11:52:18 AM
I'm so sad and angry that this bill passed, voted on entirely by men. And that governor is a traitor to all women. I feel so lucky to live in Canada, but i still feel terrible for all the women and children who will suffer because of this heartless bill.

There are plenty of women (roughly the same % as men, apparently) who are pro-life and would applaud this bill. There's no reason to think that a women capable of being elected to state wide office in Alabama would have voted differently.

It's a lot less about man vs. woman that it is religious vs. non-religious, and Alabama is especially full of religious people.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: PoutineLover on May 16, 2019, 11:58:19 AM
I'm so sad and angry that this bill passed, voted on entirely by men. And that governor is a traitor to all women. I feel so lucky to live in Canada, but i still feel terrible for all the women and children who will suffer because of this heartless bill.

There are plenty of women (roughly the same % as men, apparently) who are pro-life and would applaud this bill. There's no reason to think that a women capable of being elected to state wide office in Alabama would have voted differently.

It's a lot less about man vs. woman that it is religious vs. non-religious, and Alabama is especially full of religious people.
Well, there is one reason to think that women elected to state office in Alabama wouldn't.. None of the 4 women in the senate there voted for this bill.
This is absolutely an attack on women, mostly by men, although I agree there are plenty of women (especially religious ones) who are complicit.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: shenlong55 on May 16, 2019, 12:04:43 PM
The "Double Effect",  I think.

It's why we're okay with switching a trolley from the track with 5 people to the track with 1 person.
And we're not okay with pushing a fat guy off a bridge to slow the trolley down and save the 5 people farther along the track.

Toque.

Quick off topic note.  I was thinking about this recently and I think the reason we're not okay with pushing the fat guy off the bridge is actually because the fat guy is in the same location as us and therefore can see the same issue we see and is capable of choosing to sacrifice himself or not.  Whereas in the first scenario we're the only ones who can take action to ensure a 'better' outcome.  I'm okay with sacrificing my own morals/ethics to ensure less suffering, I'm not okay with sacrificing someone else's life when they are able to but choose not to consent.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 16, 2019, 12:09:38 PM


Morons Are Governing Again?  Indeed.

 I truly just don't get it. 

 I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.




Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: pdxbator on May 16, 2019, 12:13:24 PM
And in other Alabama news there will be an execution tonight. I just don't know how these people square their ideals in their brains.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 16, 2019, 12:20:03 PM



Exactly.  I think I've finally been able to come up with my simple position on this:  I am for bodily autonomy for women. 

Autonomy of one's physical personhood is an unalienable right.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: PoutineLover on May 16, 2019, 12:20:23 PM
What access is there to the "morning after pill" in Alabama? In fact what is access to contraception like generally?
Can you buy online? I know women in Ireland used to obtain MOP from the UK, prior to liberalisation.
And of course under anti abortion legislation there have been women jailed in Central American countries when they had a miscarriage, because they were accused of having procured an abortion.

It's available, assuming that you live somewhere where the pharmacist isn't opposed to it somehow.  It's also only 75% effective.

75%?

WebMD cites 95% effectiveness if taken within 24 hours and up to 89% effectiveness if taken within 72 hours.


It must be more effective now than it was when I was in college.  The idea was that it works by stopping or delaying ovulation.  If you took it after the egg was already released then it didn't work.  Since an egg could be fertilized up until a week after ovulation it was determined that there was one week out of four that it wouldn't work.  I wonder if some other hormone has been added to it now.
It's also important to note that the morning after pill is significantly less effective on overweight/obese women
https://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecobesity.html
And 37% of women in alabama are obese, and 45% of black women
https://www.stateofobesity.org/states/al/
They would need a copper IUD inserted within 5 days after unprotected sex, which can cost $1000 if you're uninsured. Luckily alabama also has practically the highest rate of uninsured people, especially in rural areas
https://altoday.com/archives/26672-high-uninsured-rates-plague-alabamas-rural-areas-new-report-shows
And also one of the highest poverty rates in the country
http://alabamapossible.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/AP_PovertyFactSheet_2018_Web.pdf

So basically, this bill is saying fuck (especially poor, uninsured, black, overweight) women
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 16, 2019, 12:22:05 PM
And in other Alabama news there will be an execution tonight. I just don't know how these people square their ideals in their brains.
Foetuses are innocent.

Raped and subsequently pregnant 13 year old girls aren't innocent, of course.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 16, 2019, 12:23:35 PM
And in other Alabama news there will be an execution tonight. I just don't know how these people square their ideals in their brains.
Foetuses are innocent.

Raped and subsequently pregnant 13 year old girls aren't innocent, of course.

Life is only valuable in utero.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Luke Warm on May 16, 2019, 12:24:38 PM
thoughts and prayers.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 16, 2019, 12:25:35 PM
I'm so sad and angry that this bill passed, voted on entirely by men. And that governor is a traitor to all women. I feel so lucky to live in Canada, but i still feel terrible for all the women and children who will suffer because of this heartless bill.

There are plenty of women (roughly the same % as men, apparently) who are pro-life and would applaud this bill. There's no reason to think that a women capable of being elected to state wide office in Alabama would have voted differently.

It's a lot less about man vs. woman that it is religious vs. non-religious, and Alabama is especially full of religious people.
Well, there is one reason to think that women elected to state office in Alabama wouldn't.. None of the 4 women in the senate there voted for this bill.
This is absolutely an attack on women, mostly by men, although I agree there are plenty of women (especially religious ones) who are complicit.

The 4 women are all Democrats, and none of the 8 Democrats voted for it. All 27 Republicans (yes, all men) voted for it. What I meant was that there isn't really a good reason to think that a Republican woman capable of being elected in these Republican districts would necessarily be more inclined to vote against it than a man. Case in point: the woman capable of being elected Governor in this super conservative state happily signed the bill. In order to vote you have to be elected, and in order to be elected in most of Alabama (or at the state level) you have to already be anti-abortion.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: dougules on May 16, 2019, 12:27:17 PM
To those of you who are considering moving to somewhere for the COL, please think about this kind of thing before you do.  This bullshit is just another Wednesday in Montgomery.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 16, 2019, 12:28:35 PM



Exactly.  I think I've finally been able to come up with my simple position on this:  I am for bodily autonomy for women. 

Autonomy of one's physical personhood is an unalienable right in Alabama.  For women.

FTFY
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 16, 2019, 12:29:58 PM
thoughts and prayers.

Yes, every time there's a school shooting we can see how effective that approach is. Apparently, the effects persist right up until the next school shooting.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 16, 2019, 12:35:01 PM
thoughts and prayers.

Yes, every time there's a school shooting we can see how effective that approach is. Apparently, the effects persist right up until the next school shooting.

Given the support for abortion across religious lines, in this particular case a bit less praying would likely bring a resolution to the whole situation.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: fuzzy math on May 16, 2019, 12:37:46 PM
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 16, 2019, 12:44:43 PM

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: PoutineLover on May 16, 2019, 12:52:06 PM

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.
Well seeing as Kavanaugh just ignored stare decisis.. I don't see that as a convincing argument.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2019/05/13/supreme-court-shows-its-ready-to-overrule-precedent-dissent-sounds-alarm-in-california-v-hyatt/#38333f7c4ccb
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 16, 2019, 01:02:40 PM
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

I've read similar arguments, that Alabama in their zeal overshot the mark and produced a law too extreme to make it to the Supreme Court. Other states are passing slightly less extreme laws that have better odds.

And I'm convinced that for Trump at least riling up the base is a primary outcome. I don't think he gives a crap about abortion rights either way, but is happy to avail himself of the obvious political utility.

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Kris on May 16, 2019, 01:11:29 PM

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.
Well seeing as Kavanaugh just ignored stare decisis.. I don't see that as a convincing argument.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2019/05/13/supreme-court-shows-its-ready-to-overrule-precedent-dissent-sounds-alarm-in-california-v-hyatt/#38333f7c4ccb

Exactly. As far as I can tell, Trump nominated Kavanaugh precisely for one qualification: his ability to pretend to give a shit about stare decisis during his confirmation hearings even though he clearly never did.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: jeninco on May 16, 2019, 01:42:03 PM

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.
Well seeing as Kavanaugh just ignored stare decisis.. I don't see that as a convincing argument.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2019/05/13/supreme-court-shows-its-ready-to-overrule-precedent-dissent-sounds-alarm-in-california-v-hyatt/#38333f7c4ccb

Exactly. As far as I can tell, Trump nominated Kavanaugh precisely for one qualification: his ability to pretend to give a shit about stare decisis during his confirmation hearings even though he clearly never did.

Well, and because he identified with his drunken rapey ways.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 16, 2019, 02:19:15 PM
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced  vis-à-vis my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Supreme Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.





Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 16, 2019, 02:31:11 PM

I've read similar arguments, that Alabama in their zeal overshot the mark and produced a law too extreme to make it to the Supreme Court. Other states are passing slightly less extreme laws that have better odds.


Precisely.

I cannot conceive (bad pun!)of any district court or circuit court upholding this Draconian antiabortion statute.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 16, 2019, 02:33:21 PM
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced vis-a'-vis  my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately it would appear that Trump, via the more extreme parts of the Republican establishment, has probably appointed two judges whose whole purpose is to allow their personal perspectives and prejudices to colour their decisions.   If they possibly can reverse Roe v Wade, they will.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Khaetra on May 16, 2019, 02:58:27 PM
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced vis-a'-vis  my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately it would appear that Trump, via the more extreme parts of the Republican establishment, has probably appointed two judges whose whole purpose is to allow their personal perspectives and prejudices to colour their decisions.   If they possibly can reverse Roe v Wade, they will.

If only there were a video of Trump actually saying that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTSVzSiRpcI
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 16, 2019, 03:06:36 PM
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced vis-a'-vis  my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately it would appear that Trump, via the more extreme parts of the Republican establishment, has probably appointed two judges whose whole purpose is to allow their personal perspectives and prejudices to colour their decisions.   If they possibly can reverse Roe v Wade, they will.

In some states, Tenth-Amendment federalism's legislative power is the power antiabortion  legislators will exercise  to increasingly restrict a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to choose abortion.

In other states  legislators  will uphold a woman's fundamental right to choose abortion by amending their constitutions to include it.

The antipodal  results of these exercises of legislative power encapsulate the essence of federalism.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: mm1970 on May 17, 2019, 11:11:02 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?
It is not.  In the slightest.

Even dead bodies have more autonomy.  If you aren't an organ donor and you're dead, they just bury your perfectly good organs with you.  Nuts, eh?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Glenstache on May 17, 2019, 11:29:01 AM
I think the GOP stance on sexual education is a really ugly version of the trolley car problem. They could fully fund Planned Parenthood (and parallel organizations) and all of the programs related to sexual and women's health and drastically reduce the abortion rate (this is decisively backed up by data). Or, they could decide that a small percentage of medical procedures are bad and defund the whole thing, along with pretty much any sex ed except for abstinence. This is also decisively shown to increase unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates.

It's almost as if they are just trying to control people and enforce religious dogma. I have zero problem with them leading their own lives this way. I do have a problem with having their religious beliefs hoisted on others. Ugh.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Louisville on May 17, 2019, 11:50:54 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.
You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 17, 2019, 12:23:07 PM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.

You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.

Interesting.


So, if my neighbour tied me down, cut out my kidney, and got an unethical doctor friend to transplant it into him, I'd be SOL.  It's in his body and we would have to actively cut it out (killing him) to give me back my own kidney.

I realize that this probably sounds like a ridiculous scenario, so let me hit you with one that is maybe a bit more believable:  A woman is raped and becomes pregnant.  Although she was impregnated forcibly against her will, that violation should now cause the loss of her autonomy over her own body?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 17, 2019, 01:00:04 PM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.
You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.
An abortion is not active, it is reactive.  The abortion is not creating a problem ab initio, it is rectifying a problem.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ketchup on May 17, 2019, 01:12:46 PM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?
This is truly the best way to frame the whole thing. 

It's a hell of a lot better an argument than "my body, my choice" or similar, which to someone that thinks abortion is murder would just say "Cool story, still murder."  Same goes for rape/incest honestly.  If abortion-is-murder types are truly consistent, of course there should be no exceptions at all.  Murder = bad, end of story.

Also, I see this a lot being framed as "men taking away rights from women" but the depressing thing is that the numbers between men and women pro-lifers is really damn close.  According to Pew (https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/) 36% of women and 37% of men think abortion should be illegal.  According to the data, it's religion and party identity that most predict one's opinion on abortion (White evangelical Protestants and Republicans are unsurprisingly the two groups there of which a majority think it should be illegal).  The association with age is very weak (I didn't expect this.).

I'm as pro-choice as the next liberal atheist millennial, but we need to frame any talking points correctly or it just causes unproductive shouting matches.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: jrhampt on May 17, 2019, 01:14:30 PM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.

You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.

Interesting.


So, if my neighbour tied me down, cut out my kidney, and got an unethical doctor friend to transplant it into him, I'd be SOL.  It's in his body and we would have to actively cut it out (killing him) to give me back my own kidney.

I realize that this probably sounds like a ridiculous scenario, so let me hit you with one that is maybe a bit more believable:  A woman is raped and becomes pregnant.  Although she was impregnated forcibly against her will, that violation should now cause the loss of her autonomy over her own body?

I swear there was a Star Trek episode similar to your example...I think aliens stole body parts from the crew and then they had the dilemma of figuring out whether they could retrieve their body parts from the aliens...
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: jrhampt on May 17, 2019, 01:32:15 PM
Aha!!  It was the Phage. [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)/url] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

I think captain janeway made the wrong call on this, though.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: jrhampt on May 17, 2019, 01:33:28 PM
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708946/
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: scottish on May 17, 2019, 08:02:39 PM
Aha!!  It was the Phage. [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)/url] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

I think captain janeway made the wrong call on this, though.

Wow, I hadn't seen that one.    It reminds me a little bit of "Merchant of Venice" - when is your property worth a pound of flesh?

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 18, 2019, 03:54:31 AM
Here is what I think is an excellent discussion focusing on women's agency in having an abortion, in contrast to legislation which criminalises medical providers.

When Chris Hayes asks why this discrepancy, why does the legislation apply to the medical providers not the women, Emily Atkin says "because they don't want us to know that the cruelty is the point, the cruelty has always been the point".

https://www.msnbc.com/all  - "Arrest me you Alabama cowards"

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 18, 2019, 06:37:43 AM
One thing I don't understand about the Republican women - how are they not having the 13 children my great-grandmother had when there was no birth control?  If  states that are most restrictive of abortion are also most restrictive of contraceptives, these married women should be having 11-15 babies.  This isn't happening.  And when their unmarried daughters get pregnant, and when their unmarried sons get their girlfriends pregnant, are they right back to "they have to get married"?  I feel like I am back in the '50s and early '60's.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 11:17:27 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 18, 2019, 11:28:11 AM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.
The only people who have a obligation to feed the newborn child are parents who have accepted that legal obligation, and who even if they have accepted that obligation may delegate the job to others, and anyone who has a professional obligation to the newborn child.  Someone who has an abortion is someone who is saying "I do not accept any legal obligation to let this foetus grow in my body".
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 18, 2019, 12:00:03 PM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.


I agree with you, if the situations were comparable it would be a morally bankrupt argument.  But it's possible to give up a child that can't be fed for adoption.  Nobody loses rights to their person in doing so, and the child is perfectly fine.  This is quite different than what's going on in both scenarios that I brought up.

Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so.  There are no risks associated with feeding a child.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 18, 2019, 12:17:48 PM

I realize that this probably sounds like a ridiculous scenario, so let me hit you with one that is maybe a bit more believable:  A woman is raped and becomes pregnant.  Although she was impregnated forcibly against her will, that violation should now cause the loss of her autonomy over her own body?


A marry-your-rapist law is another  unthinkable, abominable abridgement of a woman's autonomy.

Wikipedia

A marry-your-rapist law, marry-the-rapist law or rape-marriage law is a law regarding rape that exonerates a man or boy from prosecution for rape, sexual assault, statutory rape, abduction or similar acts if the offender marries his female victim. The "marry-your-rapist" law is a legal way for such a rapist to avoid punishment and prosecution.[1] Although the terms for this phenomenon were only coined in the 2010s,[2][3][4][5][6] the practice has existed in a number of legal systems in history, and continues to exist in some societies today in various forms.[7] Such laws were common around the world until the 1970s. Since the late 20th century, the remaining laws of this type have been increasingly challenged and repealed in a number of countries.[4][8]
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 18, 2019, 12:53:03 PM


Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion. 


 Decriminalization of abortion, and the determination  that a woman has a constitutional, fundamental right to choose to terminate her pregnancy is due in part to the Roe Court's cognizance that "Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth."


Roe v. Wade (1973)



Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence.

The second reason is concerned with abortion as a medical procedure. When most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman. [n43]   

This was particularly true prior to the [p149]  development of antisepsis. Antiseptic techniques, of course, were based on discoveries by Lister, Pasteur, and others first announced in 1867, but were not generally accepted and employed until about the turn of the century.

Abortion mortality was high. Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today.

Thus, it has been argued that a State's real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.

Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe.

Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. [n44] 

 Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. Of course, important state interests in the areas of health and medical standards do remain.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 12:54:01 PM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.


I agree with you, if the situations were comparable it would be a morally bankrupt argument.  But it's possible to give up a child that can't be fed for adoption.  Nobody loses rights to their person in doing so, and the child is perfectly fine.  This is quite different than what's going on in both scenarios that I brought up.

Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so.  There are no risks associated with feeding a child.


Louisville pointed out the flaw in your original argument, so you posted an alternative explanation.  I pointed out a flaw in your alternative explanation, so you re-asserted your original argument.  You're dancing in circles.


Taking active steps to harm a person, is not the same as choosing not to assist them.  One is active interference and the other is not.  They are treated very differently in the Law and widely considered to be different morally.  If you can't see what that difference is, I don't know what to tell you.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 18, 2019, 01:05:29 PM
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control and super hard to get abortions) are not having 10+ babies.

If no-one can explain it, I will assume the worst, that they only have sex to make a baby, and the rest of the time there is no sex in the marriage.  At which point some of the worst politicians/ministers/etc. who have been found to have affairs are explained - they are not "getting it" at home.

Someone please tell me this scenario is wrong.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 01:10:51 PM
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 01:19:58 PM
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 18, 2019, 01:20:40 PM
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 18, 2019, 01:42:14 PM
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.

Yes I was serious.   

From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.  Condoms and contraceptive creams have a failure rate.*  In Canada the pill and the IUD are by doctor prescription only.  If an American woman lives in a small town and can't find a doctor who will prescribe this for her, because her state government has cracked down, what is she going to do?  Use a condom and contraceptive cream and  keep a calendar?  Lovely, we are back in the 50's and 60's.  I was in University when "Our bodies, our selves" (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/) came out - it was revolutionary.  I don't want my daughter and potential grand-daughters stuck in a time warp.

So I was serious in asking how these women manage birth control, given that their moral premise is that birth control and abortion are about equally wrong.**


* I somehow doubt a rapist will be considerate enough to wear a condom, given the Alabama legislation doesn't allow for abortion of pregnancies due to rape.  A pregnancy is not his problem.

** Seriously, if the only issue were abortion, anti-abortionists would be the strongest proponents of birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would potentially be ended by abortion.  Since they are not, the larger issue is obviously control of a woman's body and her sexual life.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 01:47:41 PM
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law? 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 18, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.



The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.


I agree with you, if the situations were comparable it would be a morally bankrupt argument.  But it's possible to give up a child that can't be fed for adoption.  Nobody loses rights to their person in doing so, and the child is perfectly fine.  This is quite different than what's going on in both scenarios that I brought up.

Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so.  There are no risks associated with feeding a child.


Louisville pointed out the flaw in your original argument, so you posted an alternative explanation.

No, I demonstrated why the 'flaw' pointed out doesn't hold up under scrutiny (I've highlighted this part above so you can more easily find it).  There is no difference between leaving a person who needs a kidney transplant to die on his own and leaving a fetus who needs a womb to die on it's own.



I pointed out a flaw in your alternative explanation, so you re-asserted your original argument. 

This is a mischaracterization of what was written.  If you'll more carefully read above, you'll find an explanation of why the situation that you describe is not at all comparable to the one under discussion.  Specifically, there need be no infringement of personal autonomy when feeding a child.  Bearing and birthing a child does infringe on a woman's personal autonomy.  That makes the two scenarios quite different.



Taking active steps to harm a person, is not the same as choosing not to assist them.  One is active interference and the other is not.  They are treated very differently in the Law and widely considered to be different morally.  If you can't see what that difference is, I don't know what to tell you.

As previously mentioned, it is possible to remove a fetus from the womb without killing it.  At this point there is no active interference and no difference between the abortion and kidney donor scenario.



Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 

Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

"Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271)

I agree with you that maternal mortality rates are pretty low.  I'd feel more comfortable letting the woman who is at risk of death be the judge of how much those risks matter though, rather than choosing for her.


Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law? 

A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person. 

I'd personally argue that a fetus should be treated as a person when that fetus can live out of the womb, on it's own.  This would include late stage fetuses, but would not include those in the first trimester.

If you're going to argue that all fetus are people, you'll find yourself in a lot of situations that don't make much sense.  For example, would you charge a newborn with murder for killing it's sibling in the (very common - about 1 in 8 pregnancies) case of a vanishing twin?  If not, why not?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 18, 2019, 02:13:30 PM
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law?
Wrong question.  My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 02:13:46 PM
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.

Yes I was serious.   

From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.
I don't see this.  Do you have a source showing that access is significantly restricted?  Some doctors or pharmacists are allowed to refuse care based on personal beliefs, but are they refusing to prescribe BC?  You think that is widespread, based on .. what?


Quote
Condoms and contraceptive creams have a failure rate.*  In Canada the pill and the IUD are by doctor prescription only.  If an American woman lives in a small town and can't find a doctor who will prescribe this for her, because her state government has cracked down, what is she going to do?  Use a condom and contraceptive cream and  keep a calendar?  Lovely, we are back in the 50's and 60's.  I was in University when "Our bodies, our selves" (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/ (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/)) came out - it was revolutionary.  I don't want my daughter and potential grand-daughters stuck in a time warp.

So I was serious in asking how these women manage birth control, given that their moral premise is that birth control and abortion are about equally wrong.**
You originally asked why Republicans in restrictive states aren't having 10+ children, under the assumption that they have difficulty accessing birth control.  The vast majority of them do not have any trouble accessing birth control. 


Quote
* I somehow doubt a rapist will be considerate enough to wear a condom, given the Alabama legislation doesn't allow for abortion of pregnancies due to rape.  A pregnancy is not his problem.


** Seriously, if the only issue were abortion, anti-abortionists would be the strongest proponents of birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would potentially be ended by abortion.  Since they are not, the larger issue is obviously control of a woman's body and her sexual life.
The pro-life position is that the unborn child is a person, regardless of whether it was conceived with consent.  The rape is evil, but the unborn child is innocent and deserves protection. 

You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 02:33:26 PM
Quote
As previously mentioned, it is possible to remove a fetus from the womb without killing it.  At this point there is no active interference and no difference between the abortion and kidney donor scenario.



Removing a fetus from the womb IS the active interference.  That is the abortion.  Taking a live, growing, unborn child away from the environment in which it can thrive, and moving it to a new environment where it will certainly die.


Quote
[size=0px]A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person. [/size][/size][size=0px] [/size]

Not currently.  That is something the pro-life movement would like to change.

Quote
[/size][size=0px]I'd personally argue that a fetus should be treated as a person when that fetus can live out of the womb, on it's own.  This would include late stage fetuses, but would not include those in the first trimester.[/size]
[size=0px]The youngest surviving babies have been born at 21 weeks and 5 days.  Would you support making abortion illegal after this time?

[/size]
Quote
[size=0px]If you're going to argue that all fetus are people, you'll find yourself in a lot of situations that don't make much sense.  For example, would you charge a newborn with murder for killing it's sibling in the (very common - about 1 in 8 pregnancies) case of a vanishing twin?  If not, why not?
[/size]
[size=0px]
For the same reason 1 year old's are not prosecuted for murder.  They don't have the capacity to know that what they are doing is wrong.  In the case of the vanishing twin, there is no known ability for the surviving twin to prevent the death.[/size]
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Hotstreak on May 18, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law?
Wrong question.  My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.


It doesn't have to be one or the other.  They can both be considered people, and their rights and responsibilities can be balanced against each other. 

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: NotJen on May 18, 2019, 02:39:26 PM
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control and super hard to get abortions) are not having 10+ babies.
...
Someone please tell me this scenario is wrong.

Republican women are not against contraceptives.  That part of your scenario is wrong.

The women I know who support the new Alabama law are totally for using all the contraceptives you can get your hands on.  We (apparently, I haven't tested this) can get emergency contraceptives from pharmacies and clinics without a prescription.  Condoms are everywhere.  Pills require a prescription (everywhere in the US?), but if you have access to a doctor and a pharmacy are no problem.  I got free exam/pills at my Alabama university when I was a student.  If you don't have access to a doctor or pharmacy, yes, your options would be limited.

Quote
From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.

Curious where you're seeing this.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 18, 2019, 03:23:51 PM
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law?
Wrong question.  My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.


It doesn't have to be one or the other.  They can both be considered people, and their rights and responsibilities can be balanced against each other.

In practice it does have to be one or the other.  And given that situation, the choice is between a woman having autonomy and a woman being subjugated.

Plus, the abortion law is not about giving rights to a foetus, it's about taking away the rights of a doctor to treat a patient and the right of a patient to have medical treatment.  Nothing in the substance of the Act is about the rights of a foetus at all: that's a complete strawman argument.  See the text of the Act: section 4 makes it an offence for someone to perform an abortion and section 5 states that the woman is not criminally or civilly liable for having an abortion.  Nothing about the rights of a foetus as against the rights of a woman.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190516054511/https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB314/id/2018876
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 18, 2019, 03:53:29 PM
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control and super hard to get abortions) are not having 10+ babies.
...
Someone please tell me this scenario is wrong.

Republican women are not against contraceptives.  That part of your scenario is wrong.

The women I know who support the new Alabama law are totally for using all the contraceptives you can get your hands on.  We (apparently, I haven't tested this) can get emergency contraceptives from pharmacies and clinics without a prescription.  Condoms are everywhere.  Pills require a prescription (everywhere in the US?), but if you have access to a doctor and a pharmacy are no problem.  I got free exam/pills at my Alabama university when I was a student.  If you don't have access to a doctor or pharmacy, yes, your options would be limited.

Quote
From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.

Curious where you're seeing this.

I'm glad my worst-case scenario is wrong.  I also want women (and men) to have all the access they need to birth control of all sorts.  Which in a worst-case scenario means an abortion.

I haven't really been seeing much of anything about contraceptives specifically.  I have seen articles pointing out that clinics such as Planned Parenthood have difficulty with providing all sorts of health care (contraceptives, pre-natal health checks) because of also providing abortions.  I haven't seen anything where anti-abortionists are massively promoting contraceptives.

Given this information:
https://www.babycenter.ca/a252/understanding-miscarriage
How common is miscarriage?
It depends when it happens. Sadly, early miscarriages are very common. Often, a woman miscarries before she even realizes she's pregnant. Perhaps as many as three-quarters of all fertilised eggs are lost in the very earliest days of pregnancy. After a positive pregnancy test, there's about a one in five chance of having an early miscarriage. This is when most miscarriages happen.


it is overoptimistic to assume that a fetus that was aborted early (morning after pill or early abortion) would have made it to birth. 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 18, 2019, 04:03:13 PM


My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.

In Roe, after exhaustive scrutiny  of the Constitution, the Supreme Court found that usage of the word "person," throughout the Constitution, in its  various Amendments and Articles, "has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Furthermore,  the  Court observed "that throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today." This observation, in conjunction with its other determinations,  led the Court to conclude "that the word 'person'...does not include the unborn."


Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Glenstache on May 18, 2019, 05:10:25 PM
Given the wording of section 5, I wonder about how the use of misoprostol would shake out legally.
Quote
Section 5. No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.

And misoprostol for those who are not familiar with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misoprostol
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 18, 2019, 06:36:39 PM
Given the wording of section 5, I wonder about how the use of misoprostol would shake out legally.
Quote
Section 5. No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.

And misoprostol for those who are not familiar with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misoprostol

It is obvious that by herself  a pregnant woman can perform her own abortion.

She can perform it with an implement or with drugs.

Section 5 is sloppy   draftsmanship  if the legislators who drafted it did not intend it to shield a women who performs her own abortion  from criminal or civil liability.

EDIT: Suppose in Alabama a  female physician aborted her own fetus and authorities were informed of it.

What an interesting case that would be.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 18, 2019, 08:27:42 PM
Quote from: GuitarStv
As previously mentioned, it is possible to remove a fetus from the womb without killing it.  At this point there is no active interference and no difference between the abortion and kidney donor scenario.

Removing a fetus from the womb IS the active interference.  That is the abortion.  Taking a live, growing, unborn child away from the environment in which it can thrive, and moving it to a new environment where it will certainly die.

So if my neighbour cuts me open, steals my kidney, and implants it in himself so he can stay alive . . . then legally there should be nothing I can do about that from your point of view?  It would require active interference.



Quote
A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person.

Not currently.  That is something the pro-life movement would like to change.

Maybe we could just stick to the correct legal, medical, and dictionary terms as they stand right now.  (In that vein, using the term 'unborn child' is always incorrect.  A child is born, before it's born it's not a child.)



Quote from: GuitarStv
I'd personally argue that a fetus should be treated as a person when that fetus can live out of the womb, on it's own.  This would include late stage fetuses, but would not include those in the first trimester.

The youngest surviving babies have been born at 21 weeks and 5 days.  Would you support making abortion illegal after this time?

Why would I support forcing women to be incubators if a baby can survive and support itself?  No, if the fetus can survive at 21 weeks and 5 days, then remove it and let it survive on it's own.  If it's not developed enough to survive on it's own and requires the consent of another person to live, that's the whole reason that abortion is morally acceptable.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ketchup on May 18, 2019, 10:30:41 PM
the term 'unborn child' is always incorrect.  A child is born, before it's born it's not a child.
+1000 This drives me batty.  I get it's more emotionally charged to say "unborn child" or even just "child" but it's flat out wrong.  Maybe we could compromise and say it is a "pre-child" instead of fetus or child?

What we call something matters.  Same reason we still commonly call cannabis marijuana.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 19, 2019, 01:59:06 PM



[/font]
Quote
[size=0px]A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person. [/size][/size][size=0px] [/size]

Not currently.  That is something the pro-life movement would like to change.


Indeed it would.

Whether by the judicial branch, Congress, State legislatures, or amendment to the Constitution of the United States, establishment of fetal personhood is the holy grail doggedly sought for generations by antiabortion stalwarts throughout the United States.

Among its provisions, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Establishment of fetal personhood means that the Due Process Clause applies to a fetus. Consequently, the fetus  cannot legally be deprived of its life (aborted) without due process of law, a grave obstruction  of  a woman's exercise of her   fundamental right to choose abortion  that in almost all cases will  be fatal to it, a fatality that will be an exceeding triumph for the foes of Roe.



Roe v. Wade (1973)

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,  for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.   On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument   that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Gin1984 on May 20, 2019, 09:32:36 AM
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.

Yes I was serious.   

From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.
I don't see this.  Do you have a source showing that access is significantly restricted?  Some doctors or pharmacists are allowed to refuse care based on personal beliefs, but are they refusing to prescribe BC?  You think that is widespread, based on .. what?


Quote
Condoms and contraceptive creams have a failure rate.*  In Canada the pill and the IUD are by doctor prescription only.  If an American woman lives in a small town and can't find a doctor who will prescribe this for her, because her state government has cracked down, what is she going to do?  Use a condom and contraceptive cream and  keep a calendar?  Lovely, we are back in the 50's and 60's.  I was in University when "Our bodies, our selves" (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/ (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/)) came out - it was revolutionary.  I don't want my daughter and potential grand-daughters stuck in a time warp.

So I was serious in asking how these women manage birth control, given that their moral premise is that birth control and abortion are about equally wrong.**
You originally asked why Republicans in restrictive states aren't having 10+ children, under the assumption that they have difficulty accessing birth control.  The vast majority of them do not have any trouble accessing birth control. 


Quote
* I somehow doubt a rapist will be considerate enough to wear a condom, given the Alabama legislation doesn't allow for abortion of pregnancies due to rape.  A pregnancy is not his problem.


** Seriously, if the only issue were abortion, anti-abortionists would be the strongest proponents of birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would potentially be ended by abortion.  Since they are not, the larger issue is obviously control of a woman's body and her sexual life.
The pro-life position is that the unborn child is a person, regardless of whether it was conceived with consent.  The rape is evil, but the unborn child is innocent and deserves protection. 

You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 20, 2019, 11:49:03 AM
You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.

On an individual basis, someone who identifies as "pro-life" may certainly care about the entire spectrum of life.

On an institutional basis, the GOP has been the "party of life" for my entire 4-decade life. From where I'm sitting, the GOP consistently votes against policies that would benefit born people. Fetuses are a convenient sacred cow because other than legislation, nothing else needs to be done. But I think Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart summed it up better than I could (https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/10156549406811031):

Quote
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 20, 2019, 12:32:16 PM
You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.

On an individual basis, someone who identifies as "pro-life" may certainly care about the entire spectrum of life.

On an institutional basis, the GOP has been the "party of life" for my entire 4-decade life. From where I'm sitting, the GOP consistently votes against policies that would benefit born people. Fetuses are a convenient sacred cow because other than legislation, nothing else needs to be done. But I think Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart summed it up better than I could (https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/10156549406811031):

Quote
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.



Being pro-life doesn't mean you want that unborn person to have a good life.


There are a large number of people who believe that a woman who gets pregnant should be punished for having sex.  The child is the punishment, rendered unto her by God.  To them an abortion is a way of dodging this punishment.  Seen from this lens, it makes perfect sense that someone would be both pro-life and rabidly anti-government programs that help single mothers, children in need, and the poor.  It also explains how someone of the "pro-life" persuasion can favour the death penalty.  The death penalty is punishment for sins, pro-life is punishment for sins.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Kris on May 21, 2019, 12:19:34 PM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: TVRodriguez on May 21, 2019, 01:37:59 PM
I am totally on board with @GuitarStv 's kidney-uterus comparison.

Forget about a neighbor.  I am the mother of three minor children.  If I were the only potential kidney donor for any of them, I could legally choose to let him or her die.  You might make a different choice and hey, maybe I'd go to hell when I die, but you couldn't force me to allow someone else the use of my organ without my consent, even my own minor child whom I wanted and chose to have.  Same for my uterus.  The argument about "active interference" is just silly.  It's my organ, I get to decide who uses it besides myself, and anyone else making me grant an easement to my uterus or any other organ is the one "actively interfering" in my autonomy.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ncornilsen on May 21, 2019, 04:12:02 PM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Kris on May 21, 2019, 04:14:20 PM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 21, 2019, 05:59:00 PM

They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why....


In my family law class we specifically discussed the distinction between a fertilized egg in storage and a fetus. One of the differences between them we settled on was that the egg was in a condition of stasis (not a living entity) whereas the fetus was a living organism.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 21, 2019, 06:19:38 PM


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one.

The exclusion of all  state funding for abortion sweeps too broadly.

If a 12-year-old girl living in a state-funded orphanage were impregnated by a rapist I would not object  to state funding of her abortion.

I would argue the same for a woman committed to a state psychiatric hospital.

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ncornilsen on May 22, 2019, 08:14:55 AM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.



 


Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Kris on May 22, 2019, 08:19:44 AM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.

Neil, I have no quibble with you if you think RvW should remain in place. And since no federal funding is currently used in any way to fund abortions, that's a non-issue.

I've thought about the fertility thing for a long time. Probably a lot of other people have, too.

But I honestly don't get the distinction you're making. It's a fertilized egg. Life begins at conception, right? So... shouldn't every one of those "lives" be exactly the same? Isn't it wrong to choose one and throw the rest away? Freezing them shouldn't change their "life"-ness, right? They're lives waiting to happen. And then they are killed.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2019, 08:23:47 AM
Wait.

A fertilized egg in a lab is not life and doesn't deserve protection, but a fertilized egg in a woman is life and does deserve protection?  I don't understand this distinction either.

Literally the only differing factor is the woman.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ncornilsen on May 22, 2019, 08:38:17 AM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.

Neil, I have no quibble with you if you think RvW should remain in place. And since no federal funding is currently used in any way to fund abortions, that's a non-issue.

I've thought about the fertility thing for a long time. Probably a lot of other people have, too.

But I honestly don't get the distinction you're making. It's a fertilized egg. Life begins at conception, right? So... shouldn't every one of those "lives" be exactly the same? Isn't it wrong to choose one and throw the rest away? Freezing them shouldn't change their "life"-ness, right? They're lives waiting to happen. And then they are killed.

The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.  My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: jeninco on May 22, 2019, 09:05:31 AM
The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.  My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.
(From ncornilsen, but I'm too lazy to quote the whole thing)

This is actually bullshit. They may not SAY that it's about controlling women, but it absolutely is. If they don't believe that, they're lying to you and probably to themselves. What else is it to force someone to be pregnant and give birth when they choose not to? And to have that threat hanging over them for their entire adult life? "Oh, by the way, if you get raped, you'll have to spend 9 months being pregnant and then give birth?" Not to mention the whole underlying theme of "you're not actually a full citizen with the entire suite of rights and responsibilities, including the right to make your own decisions about your own health care."

And that's without going into the whole "lack of comprehensive sex education" part that seems to be part and parcel of the evangelical/conservative states package.

There is no possible way to deny another human being the right to make decisions about her own health care and not have it be about controlling women. If I inform you that you can't make decisions about how your doctor will treat anything in your urinary system without my permission, or without governmental interference in any treatment that involves your kidneys on down, you'd find that to be absurd. 

There are a billion reasons why a woman might decide to get an abortion: some of them might be "good" or "legitimate" in your estimation, and some might not, but it's absolutely none of your business what someone else decides to do with her body. As the saying goes, if you don't like abortions, don't have one.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GrayGhost on May 22, 2019, 09:18:28 AM
Wait.

A fertilized egg in a lab is not life and doesn't deserve protection, but a fertilized egg in a woman is life and does deserve protection?  I don't understand this distinction either.

Literally the only differing factor is the woman.

I agree... if you take the view that human life begins at conception, I don't see how it's ethically relevant if it takes place in a lab, or in a uterus.

I happen to not believe that human life begins at conception. It's true that conception is approximately when unique DNA is created, but I don't think that's ethically relevant. There's a guy on youtube whose name escapes me, who recommended that the beginning of brain activity might be where life begins, since the end of brain activity is when we consider that life ends. That seems reasonable to me.

Still, the bodily autonomy argument is very strong... I'd say that I'm probably pro choice, since I don't think the government should force someone to carry and support someone else for 9 months, at significant costs to lifestyle and health. The only caveat is that if the fetus is viable, I think in that case it should be removed intact and medical staff should try and save it as best they can.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2019, 09:36:17 AM
The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.  My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.

What's confusing is that it's murder when it happens in a woman, but not murder when it happens in a lab.  The exact same event.  The only differing factor between the two is the existence of a woman . . . so it's very hard not to see this as being about controlling women.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: shenlong55 on May 22, 2019, 09:37:11 AM
While I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt and to accept what they say their motivations are over my own assumptions, it's pretty hard for even me to accept this...

My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.

When it comes immediately after this...

The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 22, 2019, 10:24:19 AM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

It doesn't fit, because the anti-abortion people argue, and base their legislation, on the idea that the actions and intentions of an adult towards a foetus are irrelevant.  Or perhaps they are only irrelevant if they are the actions and intentions of a woman who is pregnant?

The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life: essentially the same argument as saying that contraceptives which prevent the implantation of a fertilised egg in the womb are not abortifacient (although again there do seem to be anti-abortion people who hold that view).  But you still can't get around the basic problem with the anti-abortion crowd that they are prioritising a foetus over a woman.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.
No.  We're just coming up with similar responses to the central talking points of the anti-abortion crowd.

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Just Joe on May 22, 2019, 10:29:36 AM
I think the GOP stance on sexual education is a really ugly version of the trolley car problem. They could fully fund Planned Parenthood (and parallel organizations) and all of the programs related to sexual and women's health and drastically reduce the abortion rate (this is decisively backed up by data). Or, they could decide that a small percentage of medical procedures are bad and defund the whole thing, along with pretty much any sex ed except for abstinence. This is also decisively shown to increase unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates.

It's almost as if they are just trying to control people and enforce religious dogma. I have zero problem with them leading their own lives this way. I do have a problem with having their religious beliefs hoisted on others. Ugh.

Seems to me that they want to maintain or grow an underclass rooted in ignorance and rumor. Perhaps easier to control, perhaps necessary to staff certain kinds of employment. Money is what it usually comes down to for some of these characters. Its easier for a whole group of people to make a big profit off of under-educated people with few options.

Once upon a time I naively thought the average person might want to (self) educate themselves but as the years have gone by I realize that some people are satisfied not really understanding the world around them. It can be an expensive lifestyle.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2019, 10:30:58 AM
The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life

This is nonsense.  Test tube babies have been around for ages now.  A womb is not a condition for life.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 22, 2019, 10:33:54 AM
The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life

This is nonsense.  Test tube babies have been around for ages now.  A womb is not a condition for life.

I don't think they can grow an embryo past a certain number of cells, though.  (Even Brave New World didn't quite get that far.)
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 22, 2019, 10:41:11 AM
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 22, 2019, 10:44:40 AM
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.

Please, I grew up in a church that claims 1 billion+ members worldwide. Said church teaches that life begins at conception, and therefore all artificial reproductive techniques that create embryos outside the uterus are mortal sins. All contraception is a mortal sin, but forms that prevent implantation (morning after pill, standard pill, IUD) are equivalent to abortion, and abortion is far worse than anything that could be done to a born child.

I have no problem if someone wants to apply those rules to their own bodies and lives, but that bullshit is increasingly spilling over into public policy. It’s happening in my state right now, backed by a “Right to life” group supported publicly by the church.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2019, 10:53:48 AM
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent.  It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Blueberries on May 22, 2019, 11:04:02 AM
Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


On the Fundamentalist front, this is absolutely true.  The control is completely separate and is often centered around women (control what they wear, what positions they can hold, what they can say and ultimately requiring they be submissive to men), but that's an entirely separate problem.  To most of these people, they do not view abortion as a means of controlling a woman; they view it as protection of human life/one of God's children.

You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.

On an individual basis, someone who identifies as "pro-life" may certainly care about the entire spectrum of life.

On an institutional basis, the GOP has been the "party of life" for my entire 4-decade life. From where I'm sitting, the GOP consistently votes against policies that would benefit born people. Fetuses are a convenient sacred cow because other than legislation, nothing else needs to be done. But I think Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart summed it up better than I could (https://www.facebook.com/dave.barnhart/posts/10156549406811031):

Quote
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.



Being pro-life doesn't mean you want that unborn person to have a good life.


There are a large number of people who believe that a woman who gets pregnant should be punished for having sex.  The child is the punishment, rendered unto her by God.  To them an abortion is a way of dodging this punishment.  Seen from this lens, it makes perfect sense that someone would be both pro-life and rabidly anti-government programs that help single mothers, children in need, and the poor.  It also explains how someone of the "pro-life" persuasion can favour the death penalty.  The death penalty is punishment for sins, pro-life is punishment for sins.

I've never heard such thinking.

I know it doesn't speak for the (traditional) Fundamentalist mindset.  Abstinence is the largest part of their sexual education.  If pregnancy occurs, life begins at conception so you are committing murder regardless of the time frame of the abortion.  Children were seen as a gift from God, not as punishment for premarital sex.  Of course if you had premarital sex, your marriage (if you married) was not "of God" so it was doomed to failure.  As for the original sin, God would punish you, but it wasn't in the form of the child. 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 22, 2019, 11:27:24 AM

What else is it to force someone to be pregnant and give birth when they choose not to? And to have that threat hanging over them for their entire adult life? "Oh, by the way, if you get raped, you'll have to spend 9 months being pregnant and then give birth?"

Some states have banned the abortion of a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Rearing a child with Down Syndrome and caring for them in adulthood may be extremely burdensome.

These bans are tyrannical, a word I do not use lightly.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 22, 2019, 11:40:03 AM
Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development .

I think of this distinction as a potentiality versus dynamism.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: OtherJen on May 22, 2019, 11:44:19 AM

I've never heard such thinking.

I know it doesn't speak for the (traditional) Fundamentalist mindset.  Abstinence is the largest part of their sexual education.  If pregnancy occurs, life begins at conception so you are committing murder regardless of the time frame of the abortion.  Children were seen as a gift from God, not as punishment for premarital sex.  Of course if you had premarital sex, your marriage (if you married) was not "of God" so it was doomed to failure.  As for the original sin, God would punish you, but it wasn't in the form of the child.

Lucky you. I was raised with the attitude that if I were to get pregnant out of wedlock, it would be shameful because everyone would know what I had done and what a bad person I had been. Pregnancy was definitely a punishment for bad behavior.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Blueberries on May 22, 2019, 11:49:08 AM

I've never heard such thinking.

I know it doesn't speak for the (traditional) Fundamentalist mindset.  Abstinence is the largest part of their sexual education.  If pregnancy occurs, life begins at conception so you are committing murder regardless of the time frame of the abortion.  Children were seen as a gift from God, not as punishment for premarital sex.  Of course if you had premarital sex, your marriage (if you married) was not "of God" so it was doomed to failure.  As for the original sin, God would punish you, but it wasn't in the form of the child.

Lucky you. I was raised with the attitude that if I were to get pregnant out of wedlock, it would be shameful because everyone would know what I had done and what a bad person I had been. Pregnancy was definitely a punishment for bad behavior.

What I was taught is pregnancy out of wedlock was definitely shameful and everyone would see your sin like a scarlet letter, but the child was not viewed as the punishment.  No, the child is God's child (which, frankly, I think was viewed positively because the child was able to be brainwashed).  Everyone viewing the woman as a piece of shit was part of her punishment (in addition to the real punishment, TBD by God).

Added important qualifier.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2019, 01:03:36 PM
The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life

This is nonsense.  Test tube babies have been around for ages now.  A womb is not a condition for life.

I don't think they can grow an embryo past a certain number of cells, though.  (Even Brave New World didn't quite get that far.)

It's coming, and likely soon.

https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-lamb-fetus-inside-artificial-womb-2017-4 (https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-lamb-fetus-inside-artificial-womb-2017-4)
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 22, 2019, 02:25:04 PM
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're going to argue a pregnant woman's body nourishing an embryo is considered "outside intervention" in the same way a doctor implanting a lab created embryo is? Really?

I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent. It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.


Honestly, I think chasing logical consistency on any one specific point within such a complicated debate can lead you astray. If you believe life begins at conception then to be logically consistent you shouldn't support any exceptions at all for incest, rape, health of the mother, etc. If it's a person it's a person. If you believe a woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes any other consideration until the point the fetus is physically removed from her body then to be logically consistent you should be supporting the right to an abortion at any time in the pregnancy (up to and including while in labor) for any reason whatsoever. I personally think both of those logically consistent positions are morally wrong. I wholeheartedly support both elective abortion (earlier in pregnancy) and sensible restrictions to elective abortion (later in pregnancy, particularly past the point of fetal viability).
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Davnasty on May 22, 2019, 02:36:25 PM

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.


Anyone who believes a fertilized embryo is a person would not agree with the bolded. It wouldn't make any sense for them to use an analogy with a premise they do not believe.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Samuel on May 22, 2019, 03:09:54 PM

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.

Anyone who believes a fertilized embryo is a person would not agree with the bolded. It wouldn't make any sense for them to use an analogy with a premise they do not believe.

Yeah, reading that again I see I wrote too fast and wasn't perfectly clear. The bolded statement was a formulation of the extreme pro-choice position, that right up until the moment of birth a fetus is not a person and has no rights to be weighed against the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Birth is a pretty clear place to assign personhood, but implantation is too if that is your belief. Both can be logically consistent depending on where you're coming from.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2019, 03:24:50 PM
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're going to argue a pregnant woman's body nourishing an embryo is considered "outside intervention" in the same way a doctor implanting a lab created embryo is? Really?

Yes.  If something needs outside intervention to live, it needs outside intervention to live.  This doesn't magically change in my world because of who provides the intervention.


I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent. It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.

Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months?  If so, fuck them.

I've already mentioned in this thread, but my view is that if a fetus can live on it's own, then I'm in favor of removing it from the mother and letting it do that.  An abortion would not be appropriate in that case, as the imposition on a woman is much smaller to safely remove the child at this point.  While a woman's autonomy is obviously very important, it certainly doesn't trump all else.  I don't think anyone has made that case in this thread.


Honestly, I think chasing logical consistency on any one specific point within such a complicated debate can lead you astray. If you believe life begins at conception then to be logically consistent you shouldn't support any exceptions at all for incest, rape, health of the mother, etc. If it's a person it's a person. If you believe a woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes any other consideration until the point the fetus is physically removed from her body then to be logically consistent you should be supporting the right to an abortion at any time in the pregnancy (up to and including while in labor) for any reason whatsoever. I personally think both of those logically consistent positions are morally wrong. I wholeheartedly support both elective abortion (earlier in pregnancy) and sensible restrictions to elective abortion (later in pregnancy, particularly past the point of fetal viability).

If you start with a mistake (in the case of your example, that a woman's autonomy trumps all else no matter the circumstances) then you get a mistake as your outcome.  That's a great example of why exploring the logic behind a decision is so important.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 22, 2019, 04:50:57 PM
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're going to argue a pregnant woman's body nourishing an embryo is considered "outside intervention" in the same way a doctor implanting a lab created embryo is? Really?

Yes.  If something needs outside intervention to live, it needs outside intervention to live.  This doesn't magically change in my world because of who provides the intervention.


I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent. It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.

Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months?  If so, fuck them.

I've already mentioned in this thread, but my view is that if a fetus can live on it's own, then I'm in favor of removing it from the mother and letting it do that.  An abortion would not be appropriate in that case, as the imposition on a woman is much smaller to safely remove the child at this point.  While a woman's autonomy is obviously very important, it certainly doesn't trump all else.  I don't think anyone has made that case in this thread.


Honestly, I think chasing logical consistency on any one specific point within such a complicated debate can lead you astray. If you believe life begins at conception then to be logically consistent you shouldn't support any exceptions at all for incest, rape, health of the mother, etc. If it's a person it's a person. If you believe a woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes any other consideration until the point the fetus is physically removed from her body then to be logically consistent you should be supporting the right to an abortion at any time in the pregnancy (up to and including while in labor) for any reason whatsoever. I personally think both of those logically consistent positions are morally wrong. I wholeheartedly support both elective abortion (earlier in pregnancy) and sensible restrictions to elective abortion (later in pregnancy, particularly past the point of fetal viability).

If you start with a mistake (in the case of your example, that a woman's autonomy trumps all else no matter the circumstances) then you get a mistake as your outcome.  That's a great example of why exploring the logic behind a decision is so important.

Isn't this the same mistake as saying that the fetus's survival trumps all else?   Just from the other direction?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 22, 2019, 05:07:18 PM



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 22, 2019, 05:18:28 PM
This is a balanced view of late-term abortions - which are not generally as late as 8.5 months.  After all, if you are already 6 months pregnant this is a wanted baby.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/termination-of-a-desired-pregnancy-for-medical-reasons-2371777
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 22, 2019, 05:50:17 PM



Isn't this the same mistake as saying that the fetus's survival trumps all else?   Just from the other direction?

My position is that the sentience of a woman carrying a fetus, with respect to the nexus she has with everything in her world, is a totality that  outweighs the survival of her fetus.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree on May 23, 2019, 05:47:30 AM



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."


That's a strawman.  if you are pregnant and you don't want to be then you take care of that shit ASAP.  The vast, vast majority of "late term" abortions take place after the typical 20 week mark, and are very much wanted, but doomed, pregnancies.  That was one of the major issues I had with my OB when  I was pregnant with my son.  He refused to do any of the early genetic screening tests and put off the anatomy scan until after 20 weeks.  He never came out and said it, but given his views on other issues (for example, he wouldn't insert an IUD because he believed that it prevented a fertilized egg from implanting, but he would give a recommendation for someone who would) I suspect that he was trying to prevent the termination of pregnancies of DS and other abnormalities.  That's not cool.  Especially considering how few OBs are actually in my town.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 23, 2019, 07:00:50 AM



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."

Sounds like Roe v Wade took a reasonable middle ground.  So, given that the people concerned about attempts to appeal that reasonable decision, given that virtually no people support 8.5 month abortions, and given that the Roe v Wade doesn't support an 8.5 term abortion anyway . . . maybe the pro-life crowd can stop pretending that this is a real concern?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 23, 2019, 07:38:03 AM



Isn't this the same mistake as saying that the fetus's survival trumps all else?   Just from the other direction?

My position is that the sentience of a woman carrying a fetus, with respect to the nexus she has with everything in her world, is a totality that  outweighs the survival of her fetus.

My quote is out of context, I was quoting GuitarStv's comment about one end of the argument, giving the other end of the argument.
(If you start with a mistake (in the case of your example, that a woman's autonomy trumps all else no matter the circumstances) then you get a mistake as your outcome.  That's a great example of why exploring the logic behind a decision is so important.)

In case you missed it, I am also for a woman's right to control her own body, including her reproduction. 

When I was pregnant, at an age when birth defects were more likely, the geneticist doing the screening asked if I would have an abortion if there was really bad news.  Because they would not do the genetic screening if I would carry to term anyway, because then there was no point in doing the screening.   We did the screening, DD had a lovely karyotype.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player on May 23, 2019, 07:51:54 AM



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."

Sounds like Roe v Wade took a reasonable middle ground.  So, given that the people concerned about attempts to appeal that reasonable decision, given that virtually no people support 8.5 month abortions, and given that the Roe v Wade doesn't support an 8.5 term abortion anyway . . . maybe the pro-life crowd can stop pretending that this is a real concern?

I support 8.5 month terminations, and I wouldn't say that hardly anyone does - you just won't hear people say it very often because it inflames an already inflamed debate.  But there are certainly some health conditions in the foetus where abortion even at that late stage is a kindness to both mother and potential child, and I'm not prepared to rule out that there may be (I assume, very rare, given than inducing a birth at that age would almost always be the better option) circumstances in which even a previously healthy foetus at 8.5 weeks is better terminated for the sake of the woman's life or health - for instance, perhaps, in the case of a bad traffic accident. 

Whatever the circumstances of a potential 8.5 month termination, I'm convinced that they will never be improved by the intervention of the government, politicians and law enforcement in the relationship between woman and medical provider.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 23, 2019, 08:04:22 AM
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Boofinator on May 23, 2019, 08:15:03 AM
I'm a firm believer in "Your mama brought you into this world, your mama can take you out!" No age restrictions.

In this I'm backed up by the Bible (Deuteronomy 21:18-21): 18 “Suppose a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. 19 In such a case, the father and mother must take the son to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. 20 The parents must say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his town must stone him to death." Needless to say, all kids will be stubborn and rebellious to some extent, so I take this as open season.

I'm also backed up by Darwin. If only people who want their kids have kids, and people who don't want their kids are allowed to abort, then as generations go by there should be less and less unwanted pregnancies, to the point where abortions will become more rare and perhaps one day become vanishingly small. Thus a self-correcting system which would in the long-term minimize the abortion rate.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: sherr on May 23, 2019, 09:37:41 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Gin1984 on May 23, 2019, 09:47:09 AM
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.
In that case you could remove the fetus via C-section and still respect the woman's bodily autonomy, just as you could remove a needle from a person who has chosen to stop giving blood.  It does not mean you harm the recipient of the aid, any more than removing a needle from one person would mean you do not attempt to get blood from another person and give the blood transfusion the injured person needs.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 23, 2019, 10:00:25 AM
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.

Alive or not is really beside the point.

See, to me I kinda see life as beginning before conception.  Sperm is alive.  The little tails stop wriggling when it's dead.  An unfertilized egg is alive (it will stop being fertile when it dies).  Both are also made up of human cells . . . which means that not only is it alive, but it's human.  But most people don't get too upset about the millions of human lives killed every time a condom is used or the single life killed every time a woman has a period.  Why is that?  Because although the sperm and egg are certainly alive and made up of human cells, they're not developed enough to be considered worthy of legal rights.

The problem with the whole abortion debate is two fold.

The first part is that we're trying to set a point of development where those legal human rights come into play, not determining whether or not a fetus is alive and human.  Is a human without a fully formed brain really human?  Is a human without a beating heart really human?  Unfortunately, there's a lot of fuzzy area in the question.  Most reasonable people would argue that a fetus at 9 months is pretty much human.  Most reasonable people would argue that a fetus one day after conception isn't.

The second problem is that we have to balance these fuzzy rights against the well known and defined rights of a woman over her own body.  I've heard many good arguments on this issue, from both sides.

But on the question of when life begins . . . meh.  It's not really all that interesting.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv on May 23, 2019, 10:00:53 AM
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.
In that case you could remove the fetus via C-section and still respect the woman's bodily autonomy, just as you could remove a needle from a person who has chosen to stop giving blood.  It does not mean you harm the recipient of the aid, any more than removing a needle from one person would mean you do not attempt to get blood from another person and give the blood transfusion the injured person needs.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 23, 2019, 10:04:14 AM
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.
In that case you could remove the fetus via C-section and still respect the woman's bodily autonomy, just as you could remove a needle from a person who has chosen to stop giving blood.  It does not mean you harm the recipient of the aid, any more than removing a needle from one person would mean you do not attempt to get blood from another person and give the blood transfusion the injured person needs.

A healthy 8.5 moth fetus in a healthy woman is only 2 weeks from the due date, lots of babies are born this early.  So why an abortion?  Go through with the last 2 weeks and give the baby up for adoption, or much more likely since the pregnancy has already gone on for 8.5 months, this is a wanted pregnancy.

That is why it is silly to talk about an 8.5 month abortion when everyone is healthy. An abortion at this point is gong to be because of a serious medical issue on either the fetus' or the mother's part.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on May 23, 2019, 10:15:14 AM


I support 8.5 month terminations, and I wouldn't say that hardly anyone does - you just won't hear people say it very often because it inflames an already inflamed debate.  But there are certainly some health conditions in the foetus where abortion even at that late stage is a kindness to both mother and potential child, and I'm not prepared to rule out that there may be (I assume, very rare, given than inducing a birth at that age would almost always be the better option) circumstances in which even a previously healthy foetus at 8.5 weeks is better terminated for the sake of the woman's life or health - for instance, perhaps, in the case of a bad traffic accident. 

Given the vicissitudes of life and pregnancy, and the ramifications in the case of each, I too support the choice of very late-term abortion.

Whatever the circumstances of a potential 8.5 month termination, I'm convinced that they will never be improved by the intervention of the government, politicians and law enforcement in the relationship between woman and medical provider.

I agree that the choice of very late-term abortion ought to be a physician-patient matter.



Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: mm1970 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ysette9 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Jim Fiction 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Davnasty 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv 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?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Jim Fiction 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! 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."
Title: Alabama
Post by: ysette9 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Gin1984 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. 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ysette9 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: TVRodriguez 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: kei te pai 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: former player 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.   
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ysette9 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Just Joe 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! 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).
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: six-car-habit 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 ?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree 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?
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Gin1984 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: six-car-habit 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: John Galt incarnate! 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: fuzzy math 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.


Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Sugaree 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. 
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: ncornilsen 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.
Title: Re: Alabama
Post by: Gin1984 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.