Pervert versus Baby killer

[sol]

Every claim made by h2r35 has been refuted at this point. He has ignored most of the information, both statistics and anecdotal situations that have been presented. He will not be changing his mind on this, not today at least.

I gave up arguing with h2r years ago.  Don't waste your breath.

[hoping2retire35]

Every claim made by h2r35 has been refuted at this point. He has ignored most of the information, both statistics and anecdotal situations that have been presented. He will not be changing his mind on this, not today at least.

If someone is in favor of forcing a women to carry a fetus to term with a) no chance of the baby's survival b) some chance of injury to the mother and c) some chance of pain and suffering for both mother and child, I'm not sure there's anything left to be said.

Well, I answered those that asked, or ignored them if it was just anecdotal or didn't get the the heart of the matter.  I also had claims that were ignored and un-refuted.

I don't think at this point it is going anywhere. In my nearly two years of being on this forum I would have thought this one would have been shut down. I am sure this will come up again.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

What is governments basic domestic duty? Enforce justice

It is a perversion of justice to violate another person as thoroughly as an abortion ban does.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  Justice cannot be enforced in this case.  It isn't achievable.  In the first place, the right thing to do is uknowable.  Individuals have a responsibility to make decisions and live with the consequences.  Creating an additional consequence in an attempt to force a choice you would prefer is abusing the power of the state and is wrong.

If enforcing justice is how you justify it, then it is unjustifiable, because there is no justice.  All that changes is who the abused is.

I completely agree that the state has a vested interest and a duty to discourage the killing of one citizen by another.  However, there is also an established precedent for when it is acceptable.  Self-defense, from acts of aggression, including extortion, assault, most forms of abuse, we don't call it murder.  And unfortunately, the government is incapable of distinguishing through legislation which babies are trying to kill which mothers and vice versa.  When a thing can't be done, it shouldn't be done.

Justice cannot be served, the government is incapable in this instance even if it could be, and as terrible as it often is, it is not the place of government to participate in this decision one way or another.  I'll join you at the bedside of the young woman who is afraid of the future and beg her not to end the life, but if she does, I'll defend her to my last from an oppressive government coming to imprison her for it.

No good comes from an abortion ban.  Only pain.  And the government that has the authority to force her to make the decision one way also has the power to force her to make it the other way.  If you really care about this, understand that the ultimate vision of the authoritarian state is not a world where there are no abortions, but a world where it controls who gets to have a child.

If you really care about abortion, you will work to create a society in which women are not punished for having children.  A world where no child is unwanted.  A world where opportunity exists for everyone.  Instead of judgment and condemnation for not having a child at the wrong time or with the wrong person, a world where motherhood forgives all past sins and earns you an honored position by default.  It's impractical as hell and not something I'm working for, but right now the incentive to have an abortion for certain women is disgustingly high, and the very people most responsible for that are the ones trying to outlaw it.

If you can't see that such a ban is more about punishment than any real concern over the welfare of children, then it's because you aren't looking.  Abortion may be terrible, but making it illegal is worse.  It is worse morally, it is worse spiritually, it is worse economically, it is worse civilly.  It is worse for men, worse for women, worse for children.  Abortion being illegal is one of the worst ideas that has ever been tried, and one of the few where we have solid data to back that up.  You can't reason your way out of it, individuals do the wrong thing all the time and there's no prison sentence for it, this is one of those things.

And as a big clue that it might be, a known pedo is likely to win an election because he supports it, despite his pedo-ness.

Being outraged that abortions are a thing is totally the right thing to be.  The way to stop it is not through the power of the state.  You could stop an abortion today, but I don't see you at the clinic offering cash for a baby.  I don't see a bunch of unwanted kids that you've adopted.  I haven't either.  I'm not willing to do the actual hard work to de-incentivize abortion, I'm not going to go around accusing folks who are against the abusive coercion by the state of supporting murder because of it.

We stopped vigilante killing in a genuine pursuit of actual justice.  And it took a monumental effort by all of society.  For decades.  Still working on it.  Vast improvements in forensic science and civil and criminal procedure before the state began intervening in any meaningful way to prevent murder as you suggest.  I submit for your consideration that the only reason murder is so rare has very little to do with it being illegal, and everything to do with there being other options for resolving conflicts and massive societal pressure discouraging the practice.  I doubt very seriously if murder was legalized that you'd see a huge surge of it.  Everyone's got family and vast swathes of society inherently understand that life is to be respected.  The law doesn't keep us from violence, we are, universally, making that choice.

[RetiredAt63]

The history of changes to abortion law in Canada, and the role of Henry Morgentaler (survivor of a Nazi concentration camp) is interesting and relevant.  Remember that Quebec was a very Catholic province while all this was happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler

[BlueMR2]

-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

You may want to read the SCOTUS ruling on Everson v. Board of Education. Sorry, but you're just flat wrong here.

Also, isn't Moore doing just that? Showing up to a club and holding opinions most Americans don't agree with? Like...you pick out the one point about him bringing his religion into public office but ignore the other despicable views he has? He certainly doesn't seem to be living the life of a good Christian.

Not really interested in what the SCOTUS has to say about it.  Being of the government, they by definition are already of lesser importance than whatever religion one might subscribe to, and their opinion is therefore irrelevant on things that impact said religion.

Sorry, not ignoring the despicable things he's done.  I thought those were well covered, didn't see any point in beating that dead horse.  I'm not defending him at all.  He doesn't appear to be very good at being a Christian overall.  Don't confuse my support of one particular point of a person for supporting them overall.  I occasionally find nice things to say about Trump too, but I do not like him as a person overall either!  Don't read more into what I post than I actually do say...

[Davnasty]

-honors the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, even as a public servant (twice removed from Supreme Court of Alabama for refusal to follow the law)

That one line at least is something I can get behind.  If you don't take your religion over all other law, you don't have religion at all.  You just hang out at a club on certain days and hold strong opinions...

You may want to read the SCOTUS ruling on Everson v. Board of Education. Sorry, but you're just flat wrong here.

Also, isn't Moore doing just that? Showing up to a club and holding opinions most Americans don't agree with? Like...you pick out the one point about him bringing his religion into public office but ignore the other despicable views he has? He certainly doesn't seem to be living the life of a good Christian.

Not really interested in what the SCOTUS has to say about it.  Being of the government, they by definition are already of lesser importance than whatever religion one might subscribe to, and their opinion is therefore irrelevant on things that impact said religion.

Sorry, not ignoring the despicable things he's done.  I thought those were well covered, didn't see any point in beating that dead horse.  I'm not defending him at all.  He doesn't appear to be very good at being a Christian overall.  Don't confuse my support of one particular point of a person for supporting them overall.  I occasionally find nice things to say about Trump too, but I do not like him as a person overall either!  Don't read more into what I post than I actually do say...

First, I can absolutely have religion without putting it above the law. How exactly do you define religion?

Second, Roy Moore put his religion over law not in a personal decision but a decision for everyone. The law was decided and it wasn't Moore's place to change that law. Are you suggesting it is a good thing to break the law if the law is in opposition of your religion? Even if it is at the expense of others?

And does apply to all religions or just Christianity?

[TheOldestYoungMan]

First, I can absolutely have religion without putting it above the law. How exactly do you define religion?

Second, Roy Moore put his religion over law not in a personal decision but a decision for everyone. The law was decided and it wasn't Moore's place to change that law. Are you suggesting it is a good thing to break the law if the law is in opposition of your religion? Even if it is at the expense of others?

And does apply to all religions or just Christianity?

So there's a, call it, the doctrine of righteousness.  If you know, based on moral beliefs (be sure you understand the critical differences between morals and ethics), that a particular action is morally correct, the righteous person is free to do it morally, irrespective of any law that prevents it.  Where a lot of people go wrong is that they also expect, out of a misunderstanding of the freedom of religion and religious practice, that they should be absolved of any consequence of it.  If you commit an ethical violation, even if it is entirely in line with your personal morals, you should expect consequences, up to an including, in the case of a politician, removal from office.  The society you live in can choose, at that point, and often does, to judge you based on the actual circumstances, regardless that vore dire instructions by prosecutors tend to give the impression that jurors do not have a choice, they inherently do.

The classic example is stealing bread to feed the starving, or breaking the pharmacy window to get medicine for a dying person.  A life is saved, a window is broken.  You still endure the punishment of breaking the law.  And yes, it applies to all religions, and that interaction between what your religion allows, what the law allows, and what other people in your community tolerate, forms a huge portion of what the culture in that area is like.  It influences food, clothing, music, recreation, and business.  In Texas it is unacceptable to brutally beat another person to death with your bare hands.  It is acceptable, however, to brutally beat a person to death who killed your child.  Your religion does not allow it, it is immoral.  Your laws do not allow it, it is unethical.  But society tolerates it, because compassion is a moral represented within the pool of available jurors.

So you can see that there's a practical limit to how far the "reasonable person" can push the freedom of religion, and the doctrine of righteousness.

Flipping it the other way around, if you know something is morally required, by your religion, and you fail to do it because there is a law that prevents you from doing it, then you likewise have to deal with that fallout as well.  It is your personal responsibility, within the context of your religion, to deal with that failure.  Different religions treat it differently, for most christians you literally just have to acknowledge that you didn't do it "because weakness sinful nature" and lament that humans are garbage and you're fine.  Which is lucky.  Rumor has it ritual evisceration is considered an acceptable path in some cultures, and in most of the Islamic world I believe stoning a female relative to death can absolve you of most religious failings.  As I understand it, within the Jewish faith you have to ask forgiveness from the people you let down on whatsitcalled Arev Rosh Natasha and then ask for forgiveness from big G on Rosh Natasha.  This is an annual thing, presumably you just feel bad until then.  Feels bad bro feels bad.  Yes I know that's not what it's called.  Yes I know I'm not as funny as I think I am.

There is a tradition in American politics for politicians to not force their own personal religious practices onto us, they are in fact specifically prohibited from doing so, but it does get a little bit messy in certain areas.  Particularly when there's a history of religious homogeneity.  The whole gay marriage debate is fascinating because the obvious answer is not the legalization of gay marriage, it's the de-legalizing, that is to say, the removal of the concept of marriage, from our laws entirely.  It IS a religious institution, and therefore has no place in government.  But make that argument and both sides of the debate race to see who can light you on fire first.

[PKFFW]

The whole gay marriage debate is fascinating because the obvious answer is not the legalization of gay marriage, it's the de-legalizing, that is to say, the removal of the concept of marriage, from our laws entirely.  It IS a religious institution, and therefore has no place in government.  But make that argument and both sides of the debate race to see who can light you on fire first.

I guess I'll jump in to be the first to "light you on fire".

I concede that perhaps in ye olden times your assertion that marriage IS a religious institution may have been true.  I'd argue that in today's society marriage is first and foremost a legal contract between two parties.  Only if those parties choose it is there any religious connotation at all.  A very significant minority, which is growing all the time, choose to marry without involving any religious rules/trappings/ideas/etc.

[BlueHouse]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

GuitarStv, being from Canada, you can't know just how stupid many Americans WANT to be.  Ignorance seems to strengthen arguments in many communities here.  Many people have no interest in "that learning stuff".  They already know everything they need to know.  Dog help us. 

[ixtap]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

GuitarStv, being from Canada, you can't know just how stupid many Americans WANT to be.  Ignorance seems to strengthen arguments in many communities here.  Many people have no interest in "that learning stuff".  They already know everything they need to know.  Dog help us.

If it helps, today I was called stupid for knowing that Donald Trump has been in the news for decades prior to running for president.

[golden1]

It is a perversion of justice to violate another person as thoroughly as an abortion ban does.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  Justice cannot be enforced in this case.  It isn't achievable.  In the first place, the right thing to do is uknowable.  Individuals have a responsibility to make decisions and live with the consequences.  Creating an additional consequence in an attempt to force a choice you would prefer is abusing the power of the state and is wrong.

If enforcing justice is how you justify it, then it is unjustifiable, because there is no justice.  All that changes is who the abused is.

I completely agree that the state has a vested interest and a duty to discourage the killing of one citizen by another.  However, there is also an established precedent for when it is acceptable.  Self-defense, from acts of aggression, including extortion, assault, most forms of abuse, we don't call it murder.  And unfortunately, the government is incapable of distinguishing through legislation which babies are trying to kill which mothers and vice versa.  When a thing can't be done, it shouldn't be done.

Justice cannot be served, the government is incapable in this instance even if it could be, and as terrible as it often is, it is not the place of government to participate in this decision one way or another.  I'll join you at the bedside of the young woman who is afraid of the future and beg her not to end the life, but if she does, I'll defend her to my last from an oppressive government coming to imprison her for it.

No good comes from an abortion ban.  Only pain.  And the government that has the authority to force her to make the decision one way also has the power to force her to make it the other way.  If you really care about this, understand that the ultimate vision of the authoritarian state is not a world where there are no abortions, but a world where it controls who gets to have a child.

If you really care about abortion, you will work to create a society in which women are not punished for having children.  A world where no child is unwanted.  A world where opportunity exists for everyone.  Instead of judgment and condemnation for not having a child at the wrong time or with the wrong person, a world where motherhood forgives all past sins and earns you an honored position by default.  It's impractical as hell and not something I'm working for, but right now the incentive to have an abortion for certain women is disgustingly high, and the very people most responsible for that are the ones trying to outlaw it.

If you can't see that such a ban is more about punishment than any real concern over the welfare of children, then it's because you aren't looking.  Abortion may be terrible, but making it illegal is worse.  It is worse morally, it is worse spiritually, it is worse economically, it is worse civilly.  It is worse for men, worse for women, worse for children.  Abortion being illegal is one of the worst ideas that has ever been tried, and one of the few where we have solid data to back that up.  You can't reason your way out of it, individuals do the wrong thing all the time and there's no prison sentence for it, this is one of those things.

And as a big clue that it might be, a known pedo is likely to win an election because he supports it, despite his pedo-ness.

Being outraged that abortions are a thing is totally the right thing to be.  The way to stop it is not through the power of the state.  You could stop an abortion today, but I don't see you at the clinic offering cash for a baby.  I don't see a bunch of unwanted kids that you've adopted.  I haven't either.  I'm not willing to do the actual hard work to de-incentivize abortion, I'm not going to go around accusing folks who are against the abusive coercion by the state of supporting murder because of it.

We stopped vigilante killing in a genuine pursuit of actual justice.  And it took a monumental effort by all of society.  For decades.  Still working on it.  Vast improvements in forensic science and civil and criminal procedure before the state began intervening in any meaningful way to prevent murder as you suggest.  I submit for your consideration that the only reason murder is so rare has very little to do with it being illegal, and everything to do with there being other options for resolving conflicts and massive societal pressure discouraging the practice.  I doubt very seriously if murder was legalized that you'd see a huge surge of it.  Everyone's got family and vast swathes of society inherently understand that life is to be respected.  The law doesn't keep us from violence, we are, universally, making that choice.

+1000.  Fantastic.  I wish that the Democrats would try to appeal to pro-lifers with this logic.  You can believe abortion is an evil act without wanting to make it illegal and punish women for it.  I don’t drink, and have never used an illegal drug.  I think these substances cause massive societal problems, but  I don’t want to make them illegal, because we tried that, and the results were poor. 

[wenchsenior]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

GuitarStv, being from Canada, you can't know just how stupid many Americans WANT to be.  Ignorance seems to strengthen arguments in many communities here.  Many people have no interest in "that learning stuff".  They already know everything they need to know.  Dog help us.

Yup.  Anti-intellectualism is a long and 'glorious' American tradition.

[Monocle Money Mouth]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

GuitarStv, being from Canada, you can't know just how stupid many Americans WANT to be.  Ignorance seems to strengthen arguments in many communities here.  Many people have no interest in "that learning stuff".  They already know everything they need to know.  Dog help us.

Yup.  Anti-intellectualism is a long and 'glorious' American tradition.

It's pretty sad really. The anti-intellectuals still want all the benefits of living in a technologically advanced civilization, like smart phones, powerful/efficient/safe cars, and cutting edge medicine but they don't want to support the academic institutions and people that make all of that possible. Most people have no idea how the world works and depend on someone else to understand it for them.

[El_Viajero]

It is a perversion of justice to violate another person as thoroughly as an abortion ban does.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  Justice cannot be enforced in this case.  It isn't achievable.  In the first place, the right thing to do is uknowable.  Individuals have a responsibility to make decisions and live with the consequences.  Creating an additional consequence in an attempt to force a choice you would prefer is abusing the power of the state and is wrong.

If enforcing justice is how you justify it, then it is unjustifiable, because there is no justice.  All that changes is who the abused is.

I completely agree that the state has a vested interest and a duty to discourage the killing of one citizen by another.  However, there is also an established precedent for when it is acceptable.  Self-defense, from acts of aggression, including extortion, assault, most forms of abuse, we don't call it murder.  And unfortunately, the government is incapable of distinguishing through legislation which babies are trying to kill which mothers and vice versa.  When a thing can't be done, it shouldn't be done.

Justice cannot be served, the government is incapable in this instance even if it could be, and as terrible as it often is, it is not the place of government to participate in this decision one way or another.  I'll join you at the bedside of the young woman who is afraid of the future and beg her not to end the life, but if she does, I'll defend her to my last from an oppressive government coming to imprison her for it.

No good comes from an abortion ban.  Only pain.  And the government that has the authority to force her to make the decision one way also has the power to force her to make it the other way.  If you really care about this, understand that the ultimate vision of the authoritarian state is not a world where there are no abortions, but a world where it controls who gets to have a child.

If you really care about abortion, you will work to create a society in which women are not punished for having children.  A world where no child is unwanted.  A world where opportunity exists for everyone.  Instead of judgment and condemnation for not having a child at the wrong time or with the wrong person, a world where motherhood forgives all past sins and earns you an honored position by default.  It's impractical as hell and not something I'm working for, but right now the incentive to have an abortion for certain women is disgustingly high, and the very people most responsible for that are the ones trying to outlaw it.

If you can't see that such a ban is more about punishment than any real concern over the welfare of children, then it's because you aren't looking.  Abortion may be terrible, but making it illegal is worse.  It is worse morally, it is worse spiritually, it is worse economically, it is worse civilly.  It is worse for men, worse for women, worse for children.  Abortion being illegal is one of the worst ideas that has ever been tried, and one of the few where we have solid data to back that up.  You can't reason your way out of it, individuals do the wrong thing all the time and there's no prison sentence for it, this is one of those things.

And as a big clue that it might be, a known pedo is likely to win an election because he supports it, despite his pedo-ness.

Being outraged that abortions are a thing is totally the right thing to be.  The way to stop it is not through the power of the state.  You could stop an abortion today, but I don't see you at the clinic offering cash for a baby.  I don't see a bunch of unwanted kids that you've adopted.  I haven't either.  I'm not willing to do the actual hard work to de-incentivize abortion, I'm not going to go around accusing folks who are against the abusive coercion by the state of supporting murder because of it.

We stopped vigilante killing in a genuine pursuit of actual justice.  And it took a monumental effort by all of society.  For decades.  Still working on it.  Vast improvements in forensic science and civil and criminal procedure before the state began intervening in any meaningful way to prevent murder as you suggest.  I submit for your consideration that the only reason murder is so rare has very little to do with it being illegal, and everything to do with there being other options for resolving conflicts and massive societal pressure discouraging the practice.  I doubt very seriously if murder was legalized that you'd see a huge surge of it.  Everyone's got family and vast swathes of society inherently understand that life is to be respected.  The law doesn't keep us from violence, we are, universally, making that choice.

Bravo! It's absolutely possible to feel immense sadness at the idea of someone having an abortion while also understanding that making abortion illegal would be disastrous as policy. Outlawing abortion would undoubtedly increase human suffering and while criminalizing the behavior of vulnerable citizens and the people trying to help them. This is actually why I support choice. I try to avoid the whole "life begins at conception" vs. "life begins at some unknown moment between conception and birth but closer to birth" discussion because it all comes down to subjective, unprovable arguments.

[Sibley]

The whole gay marriage debate is fascinating because the obvious answer is not the legalization of gay marriage, it's the de-legalizing, that is to say, the removal of the concept of marriage, from our laws entirely.  It IS a religious institution, and therefore has no place in government.  But make that argument and both sides of the debate race to see who can light you on fire first.

I guess I'll jump in to be the first to "light you on fire".

I concede that perhaps in ye olden times your assertion that marriage IS a religious institution may have been true.  I'd argue that in today's society marriage is first and foremost a legal contract between two parties.  Only if those parties choose it is there any religious connotation at all.  A very significant minority, which is growing all the time, choose to marry without involving any religious rules/trappings/ideas/etc.

My mother would hit you over the head. To her, marriage is a religious institution and the country needs to follow suit. No questions asked, no arguments, no appeal. End of story. Doesn't matter if the marriage happens in a church or a courthouse.

Interestingly, she's perfectly ok with a "separate but equal" thing, as long as you don't call it marriage. All arguments that "separate but equal" has already been shown to be decidedly unequal are ignored.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

The whole gay marriage debate is fascinating because the obvious answer is not the legalization of gay marriage, it's the de-legalizing, that is to say, the removal of the concept of marriage, from our laws entirely.  It IS a religious institution, and therefore has no place in government.  But make that argument and both sides of the debate race to see who can light you on fire first.

I guess I'll jump in to be the first to "light you on fire".

I concede that perhaps in ye olden times your assertion that marriage IS a religious institution may have been true.  I'd argue that in today's society marriage is first and foremost a legal contract between two parties.  Only if those parties choose it is there any religious connotation at all.  A very significant minority, which is growing all the time, choose to marry without involving any religious rules/trappings/ideas/etc.

No I get it, I totally get it.  But you're wrong.  It IS a religious institution.  That managed to wiggle into the laws.  And people looking to formalize a benefit-sharing, inheritance assuring, long term partnership have no other vehicle in law that accomplishes the same thing.  Doesn't mean it getting on the books in the first place makes sense.  Doesn't make it right.  And the proof is in the pudding, it led directly to the mess we have now.  Let me put it another way.

Where in law does it state you can't cheat on a girlfriend?  Where in law is girlfriend defined?  Under the eyes of the law, when are we going steady?  If I go steady with two girls at once am I a slut?  At what point does it count as having done it?  The lobby good enough?  Or do I have to go all the way to the top?  The law says nothing about these.  Because that would be stupid.

When you have a legal framework like a contract, there's a legal basis for various required aspects.  Timelines, consideration, scope, things of that nature.  These have to exist or the contract is void, and there are terms covering that voidance.  The problem with comparing that to a marriage, with painting that brush, is that there's a million ways that relationship can fall apart and no possible way for the law to reasonably be applied to adjudicate the fallout.  Is it wrong to cheat on a spouse?  Not if the contract didn't include language specifically prohibiting that.  Is such language included in the law covering the subject?  No?  What about if you're OK with them sleeping with certain people but not others?  What if it turns out they were gay and you wanting to end it now becomes you committing a hate crime?  Virtually every married person I know bristles at the idea of the marriage as a contract, but every divorced person I know wishes they'd written the fucking contract out in detail ahead of time.  That's not a function of the process by which a relationship ends, that's a function of enduring the legal process called divorce.

The law deals with the phenomenon of a husband and wife because it, from a practical standpoint, had to.  Everybody got married, you just did.  It seems insane if someone suggests that it's something that is none of the law's business.  If you share your expenses with someone and call them a special title it shouldn't matter at all to the government.  The best argument for it, from that perspective, is that it seems to exist broadly across all cultures.  Pairing off, as a biological necessity for procreation, as a proven, effective method to protect children, is common.  But so is alot of other behavior related to interpersonal relations.

There's no law that governs when I decide to not have a relationship with my sister.  If I decide I'm done with my parents the law only comes into play if I'm still within their guardianship, and then it's just to withdraw obligations the law put to the parents and to grant me legal standing as a person representing himself.  The establishment of the relationship between me and my parents initially was not a legal thing.  There's a certificate but that's just a record that an event took place.

Compare all of that body of law to what exists for marriage.  What is special about that relationship?  It has infected the tax code, property law, housing contracts, rules and procedures at every level of government, in almost all things.

From a legal standpoint, it's an appalling mess, and rightly so.  Nothing about the relationship between two people is any business of the state's.  You want to marry a donkey, then marry a donkey.  I certainly give no fucks and neither does anyone else.  You want me to recognize that marriage as just as meaningful as the marriage between my parents?  Go fuck yourself, you can't compel me to do that, that's not right.  Same as you can't compel me to give a shit about your girlfriend.

It's such an obvious answer to the equal treatment problem.  Abolish marriage from our laws, and the problem goes away.  If you choose to share property after undergoing a special private ceremony, get yourself an L.L.C. and determine shareholder equity/distribution in advance.  It should no longer be the business of the state to know your relationship with the people residing at your address.  Never was their business.  We don't need special treatment for marriage, it's not going anywhere, it exists everywhere.  That keeps religious types from having to recognize marriages from people whose parts don't match (or do match? stupid parts), and it keeps people not participating in marriage at all from being excluded from special treatment as well.

No solution so massively simple should be dismissed out of hand.  Only argument I can formulate against it is the messy transition.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

GuitarStv, being from Canada, you can't know just how stupid many Americans WANT to be.  Ignorance seems to strengthen arguments in many communities here.  Many people have no interest in "that learning stuff".  They already know everything they need to know.  Dog help us.

Yup.  Anti-intellectualism is a long and 'glorious' American tradition.

It's pretty sad really. The anti-intellectuals still want all the benefits of living in a technologically advanced civilization, like smart phones, powerful/efficient/safe cars, and cutting edge medicine but they don't want to support the academic institutions and people that make all of that possible. Most people have no idea how the world works and depend on someone else to understand it for them.

It isn't anti-intellectual to reject, outright, an argument that is in its inception rhetorical.  They aren't ignorant.

I'm on your side of this issue and these are appalling ways to make the argument and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It's not a baby?  What the hell is wrong with you?  That the science around understanding female fertility and bringing about a new human life, the careful study by generations of hardworking people to understand the miracle of birth, saw fit to carefully construct a language intended to facilitate clear communication of the information should be abused in the name of abominable arguments, I am disgusted.

Terminating a pregnancy is destroying a human life.  If you can't reconcile yourself with the gravity of the conversation then get off the fucking train.

You can claim to be pro-choice if you want, but it's anti-science to claim that an abortion isn't fundamentally about ending a pregnancy, and the result of most pregnancies is a baby.  What you choose to call the unborn, the definition you choose to use for the words you speak, is your choice, and not a valid basis for rejecting arguments by others.  Especially not when you clearly understand their point.  If you understand what someone means and choose to attempt to discredit them because of the words they chose to use to say it...deplorable.  Troll.  That's what it is, that is being a troll.

What you all essentially said is "I understood what you meant, but you didn't use specific enough language, and that's your fault, so I'll declare victory, and depart the field, because my position is messy and awful, because I'd rather these unwanted children are not actually brought into this world, and because I can't face the horrifying moral convenience of being pro-choice.  Also, you're stupid.  And I'm contemptuous of your religion."

Try this out next time:  I understand your position, but the reality of the situation is that an abortion ban does far more harm than good.  Until we get better at knowing when it is appropriate, until we as a society improve to some unknowable future level of competency, it's best to keep the government out of this particular arena.  I respect that yes, that is tantamount to condoning murder, but in order to sleep at night, i'm going to not equate it to infanticide, even though it is a line so fine that if it turns out there is a "dog" I would be unsurprised to find out I had wounded my own soul, in this as well as many other things."

For me, I add "I know this is important to you, and I struggle with the same reconciliation between my faith, my obedience to the big G, and limits on the power of government.  As with all things related to walking the righteous path, I fear we are being led astray by those seeking to use the power of government to fix this.  The correct path is far more difficult, we must forge a world where abortion is a last resort, not a first.  Lets talk about it."

I know I know, "but whatabout how Trump supporters are all racist assholes."  Shining examples you lot are.  *looks at your comments* *looks at threads asking why conservatives ignore you* *looks at your comments again*

Refusing to engage takes many different forms and smug elitism is just one more.  Keep taking victory laps instead of really trying to become your own best selves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEEzZXROTo

[PKFFW]

No I get it, I totally get it.  But you're wrong.  It IS a religious institution.  That managed to wiggle into the laws.  And people looking to formalize a benefit-sharing, inheritance assuring, long term partnership have no other vehicle in law that accomplishes the same thing.  Doesn't mean it getting on the books in the first place makes sense.  Doesn't make it right.  And the proof is in the pudding, it led directly to the mess we have now.  Let me put it another way.

Ok I get it.  But you're wrong.

Two people shacking up and rooting each other was an institution long before religion managed to wiggle into it.

So how far back do you want to go?

What matters is what it is today.  Either that or admit it isn't anything except two people shacking up and rooting for a bit until they get sick of each other and go find someone else to do it with for a while. 

[DarkandStormy]

http://www.businessinsider.com/roy-moore-amendments-2017-12

Roy Moore once said it would "eliminate many problems" if the US got rid of every constitutional amendment after the first 10.

This man should be disqualified from holding any public office.

[wenchsenior]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

GuitarStv, being from Canada, you can't know just how stupid many Americans WANT to be.  Ignorance seems to strengthen arguments in many communities here.  Many people have no interest in "that learning stuff".  They already know everything they need to know.  Dog help us.

Yup.  Anti-intellectualism is a long and 'glorious' American tradition.

It's pretty sad really. The anti-intellectuals still want all the benefits of living in a technologically advanced civilization, like smart phones, powerful/efficient/safe cars, and cutting edge medicine but they don't want to support the academic institutions and people that make all of that possible. Most people have no idea how the world works and depend on someone else to understand it for them.

It isn't anti-intellectual to reject, outright, an argument that is in its inception rhetorical.  They aren't ignorant.

I'm on your side of this issue and these are appalling ways to make the argument and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It's not a baby?  What the hell is wrong with you?  That the science around understanding female fertility and bringing about a new human life, the careful study by generations of hardworking people to understand the miracle of birth, saw fit to carefully construct a language intended to facilitate clear communication of the information should be abused in the name of abominable arguments, I am disgusted.

Terminating a pregnancy is destroying a human life.  If you can't reconcile yourself with the gravity of the conversation then get off the fucking train.

You can claim to be pro-choice if you want, but it's anti-science to claim that an abortion isn't fundamentally about ending a pregnancy, and the result of most pregnancies is a baby.  What you choose to call the unborn, the definition you choose to use for the words you speak, is your choice, and not a valid basis for rejecting arguments by others.  Especially not when you clearly understand their point.  If you understand what someone means and choose to attempt to discredit them because of the words they chose to use to say it...deplorable.  Troll.  That's what it is, that is being a troll.

What you all essentially said is "I understood what you meant, but you didn't use specific enough language, and that's your fault, so I'll declare victory, and depart the field, because my position is messy and awful, because I'd rather these unwanted children are not actually brought into this world, and because I can't face the horrifying moral convenience of being pro-choice.  Also, you're stupid.  And I'm contemptuous of your religion."

Try this out next time:  I understand your position, but the reality of the situation is that an abortion ban does far more harm than good.  Until we get better at knowing when it is appropriate, until we as a society improve to some unknowable future level of competency, it's best to keep the government out of this particular arena.  I respect that yes, that is tantamount to condoning murder, but in order to sleep at night, i'm going to not equate it to infanticide, even though it is a line so fine that if it turns out there is a "dog" I would be unsurprised to find out I had wounded my own soul, in this as well as many other things."

For me, I add "I know this is important to you, and I struggle with the same reconciliation between my faith, my obedience to the big G, and limits on the power of government.  As with all things related to walking the righteous path, I fear we are being led astray by those seeking to use the power of government to fix this.  The correct path is far more difficult, we must forge a world where abortion is a last resort, not a first.  Lets talk about it."

I know I know, "but whatabout how Trump supporters are all racist assholes."  Shining examples you lot are.  *looks at your comments* *looks at threads asking why conservatives ignore you* *looks at your comments again*

Refusing to engage takes many different forms and smug elitism is just one more.  Keep taking victory laps instead of really trying to become your own best selves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEEzZXROTo

This phrase always cracks me up.  Particularly when you pair it with 'science' in the same sentence.

Ok, carry on with your regularly scheduled tirade. 

[GuitarStv]

A fetus isn't a baby.

There are specific definition for both terms, and demonstrating ignorance of this difference really weakens an argument.

GuitarStv, being from Canada, you can't know just how stupid many Americans WANT to be.  Ignorance seems to strengthen arguments in many communities here.  Many people have no interest in "that learning stuff".  They already know everything they need to know.  Dog help us.

Yup.  Anti-intellectualism is a long and 'glorious' American tradition.

It's pretty sad really. The anti-intellectuals still want all the benefits of living in a technologically advanced civilization, like smart phones, powerful/efficient/safe cars, and cutting edge medicine but they don't want to support the academic institutions and people that make all of that possible. Most people have no idea how the world works and depend on someone else to understand it for them.

It isn't anti-intellectual to reject, outright, an argument that is in its inception rhetorical.  They aren't ignorant.

I'm on your side of this issue and these are appalling ways to make the argument and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It's not a baby?  What the hell is wrong with you?  That the science around understanding female fertility and bringing about a new human life, the careful study by generations of hardworking people to understand the miracle of birth, saw fit to carefully construct a language intended to facilitate clear communication of the information should be abused in the name of abominable arguments, I am disgusted.

Terminating a pregnancy is destroying a human life.  If you can't reconcile yourself with the gravity of the conversation then get off the fucking train.

You can claim to be pro-choice if you want, but it's anti-science to claim that an abortion isn't fundamentally about ending a pregnancy, and the result of most pregnancies is a baby.  What you choose to call the unborn, the definition you choose to use for the words you speak, is your choice, and not a valid basis for rejecting arguments by others.  Especially not when you clearly understand their point.  If you understand what someone means and choose to attempt to discredit them because of the words they chose to use to say it...deplorable.  Troll.  That's what it is, that is being a troll.

What you all essentially said is "I understood what you meant, but you didn't use specific enough language, and that's your fault, so I'll declare victory, and depart the field, because my position is messy and awful, because I'd rather these unwanted children are not actually brought into this world, and because I can't face the horrifying moral convenience of being pro-choice.  Also, you're stupid.  And I'm contemptuous of your religion."

Try this out next time:  I understand your position, but the reality of the situation is that an abortion ban does far more harm than good.  Until we get better at knowing when it is appropriate, until we as a society improve to some unknowable future level of competency, it's best to keep the government out of this particular arena.  I respect that yes, that is tantamount to condoning murder, but in order to sleep at night, i'm going to not equate it to infanticide, even though it is a line so fine that if it turns out there is a "dog" I would be unsurprised to find out I had wounded my own soul, in this as well as many other things."

For me, I add "I know this is important to you, and I struggle with the same reconciliation between my faith, my obedience to the big G, and limits on the power of government.  As with all things related to walking the righteous path, I fear we are being led astray by those seeking to use the power of government to fix this.  The correct path is far more difficult, we must forge a world where abortion is a last resort, not a first.  Lets talk about it."

I know I know, "but whatabout how Trump supporters are all racist assholes."  Shining examples you lot are.  *looks at your comments* *looks at threads asking why conservatives ignore you* *looks at your comments again*

Refusing to engage takes many different forms and smug elitism is just one more.  Keep taking victory laps instead of really trying to become your own best selves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEEzZXROTo

You appear to have misconstrued what I was saying.

h2r was specifically choosing incorrect language when starting this discussion for hyperbolic emotional impact rather than reason.  The language that he chose was incorrect and this weakened his argument from the get-go . . . but this was not in any way a refutation of his pro-life stance.  It was intended as a plea to keep the hyperbole down a bit as it doesn't really help in any way in a discussion.  (Sadly this failed, as h2r later called people who support the right to choose nazis and then called abortion genocide several times . . . similar hyperbolic arguments that appeal only to emotion rather than reason).

[Kris]

^^^ Well, with a thread title like "Pervert versus baby killer," this was to be expected from the OP...

[TheOldestYoungMan]

What matters is what it is today.  Either that or admit it isn't anything except two people shacking up and rooting for a bit until they get sick of each other and go find someone else to do it with for a while.

Agreed.  That's what I'm saying.  Special legal protections for marriage are unnecessary.  We can realize how we got here and understand that there is no rational argument for keeping them in place.  It's been pointed out by people who don't conform to the traditional concept of marriage that they are being treated unequally by the law, and that is obviously true, so the solution is simple, get rid of marriage as a legal device.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

This phrase always cracks me up.  Particularly when you pair it with 'science' in the same sentence.

Ok, carry on with your regularly scheduled tirade.

Trying to understand the miracle of [insert natural phenomena here], scientists formulate theories, perform experiments, observe results, reproduce results, arrive at conclusions, seek validation from others.  Again, casting aspersions as though you have a monopoly on reason is counter-productive.  Before we understood anything there was a time when we didn't understand it.  You stand on the shoulders of greatness, but you aren't all that great.  If I call post-tensioned concrete a miracle as an engineer, I'm of course talking about how well it does a job that we really needed it to do, while understanding more about it, how it works, and why, than can be conveyed in any other meaningful way using a single word.  If your cynicism for the natural world is so great that you don't realize we can understand everything about the fact that women contain a factory inside themselves for manufacturing brand new humans and still recognize it as miraculous, that that word doesn't have to mean anti-science, then I pity you.

I know I should stop feeding the troll but I believe deep down you can be a better person than this.

You appear to have misconstrued what I was saying.

h2r was specifically choosing incorrect language when starting this discussion for hyperbolic emotional impact rather than reason.  The language that he chose was incorrect and this weakened his argument from the get-go . . . but this was not in any way a refutation of his pro-life stance.  It was intended as a plea to keep the hyperbole down a bit as it doesn't really help in any way in a discussion.  (Sadly this failed, as h2r later called people who support the right to choose nazis and then called abortion genocide several times . . . similar hyperbolic arguments that appeal only to emotion rather than reason).

Do you genuinely not understand that suggesting a fetus and a baby are so different, scientifically, as to excuse the termination of a fetus from any moral wrongdoing, is just as hyperbolic and emotionally impactful as h2r's later language?  Are you really claiming that your outright dismissal of the actual reality of the practice you're defending is an appeal to reason rather than an emotional attack?  When you use arguments such as that you invite the comparison, you practically beg for it.  You aren't trying to dialogue.

Opponents of abortion aren't stupid and they aren't wrong.  It is bad.  Objectively.  Quantifiably.  People who have abortions aren't generally excited about it, there's biological impacts that force emotional experiences on the woman, hormones that cause it to be a bad time.  It can have long term consequences.  Even when used to save the life of the mother it's not like the mother is happy about it.  It is a tragedy, deeply personal.  Have you held the crying 26 year old woman still mourning the loss after her abortion at 15?  I reject that there's anything casual about it from those that want abortions, and from those that do not.  It's just that the alternative, a government enforced abortion ban, is a million times worse.

And if the argument you use is "lol fetus isn't the same as baby;" I'm on your side and I lose my grip on reality in response to that.  It is a troll's response.  Feels bad and you should feel bad.

[partgypsy]

A fetus is not = to a baby. Not scientifically, not legally. Scientifically a fetus is unable to live apart from the mother, the mother's body is it's support system. Scientifically speaking, 15-20% of all pregnancies do not end up as a baby. Legally speaking a fetus does not have a birth certificate, a social security number and all those things that makes it count as a baby. I agree that a fetus is a potential human.

It seems in this thread we have already agreed that all life is not "equal". Someone can have a cute healthy puppy legally euthanized with zero consequences. Many species on this planet, not just 1 animal, but the entire species are at risk for being wiped off the planet due to human activities (if you want to talk about genocide this is a better example), yet on average those species have less rights than a single human. I personally don't agree with that.  A child has less rights than an adult. An adult parent can make many decisions for that child and use corporal punishment, and the minor has no legal recourse for those decisions until they are of age.

The OP also agrees, that the fact that a woman is pregnant and bears a child, is more than a temporary minor inconvenience. Being forced to bear an unwanted child not only is it a fundamental violation of someone's privacy and autonomy, is emotionally and psychologically damaging. I don't believe the rights of a potential human being, trumps that of an already existing human being.

If we were a species where say humans were like fishes and the male fish fertilized the eggs, and the male or female guarded the eggs until they hatched and then they were on their own, then I would be OK with a law outlawing destruction of fertilized eggs as long as some other human volunteered to care for the eggs until they hatched.   

[wenchsenior]

This phrase always cracks me up.  Particularly when you pair it with 'science' in the same sentence.

Ok, carry on with your regularly scheduled tirade.

Trying to understand the miracle of [insert natural phenomena here], scientists formulate theories, perform experiments, observe results, reproduce results, arrive at conclusions, seek validation from others.  Again, casting aspersions as though you have a monopoly on reason is counter-productive.  Before we understood anything there was a time when we didn't understand it.  You stand on the shoulders of greatness, but you aren't all that great. If I call post-tensioned concrete a miracle as an engineer, I'm of course talking about how well it does a job that we really needed it to do, while understanding more about it, how it works, and why, than can be conveyed in any other meaningful way using a single word.  If your cynicism for the natural world is so great that you don't realize we can understand everything about the fact that women contain a factory inside themselves for manufacturing brand new humans and still recognize it as miraculous, that that word doesn't have to mean anti-science, then I pity you.

I know I should stop feeding the troll but I believe deep down you can be a better person than this.

I'm certainly no troll, but keep on working yourself up if you wish to.  I trained as a scientist (biologist, though I rarely actively work in the field now) and I am as far as can be imagined from cynical about the natural world.  And I am well aware of how current scientists stand on the shoulders of those that came before, so no need to lecture or pity me.   I'm incredibly cynical about human nature.  The natural world in general, no.  I just find it amusing that in the midst of hyperventilating posts about accurate semantics, you conflate religious language and scientific language, and then say "OF COURSE I MEANT BLAH BLAH".

[GuitarStv]

You appear to have misconstrued what I was saying.

h2r was specifically choosing incorrect language when starting this discussion for hyperbolic emotional impact rather than reason.  The language that he chose was incorrect and this weakened his argument from the get-go . . . but this was not in any way a refutation of his pro-life stance.  It was intended as a plea to keep the hyperbole down a bit as it doesn't really help in any way in a discussion.  (Sadly this failed, as h2r later called people who support the right to choose nazis and then called abortion genocide several times . . . similar hyperbolic arguments that appeal only to emotion rather than reason).

Do you genuinely not understand that suggesting a fetus and a baby are so different, scientifically, as to excuse the termination of a fetus from any moral wrongdoing, is just as hyperbolic and emotionally impactful as h2r's later language?

A fetus and a baby are different.  Scientifically.  That said, have I made any post excusing the termination of a fetus from moral wrongdoing?

Are you really claiming that your outright dismissal of the actual reality of the practice you're defending is an appeal to reason rather than an emotional attack?

I didn't dismiss 'the actual reality of the practice you're defending'.  I pointed out that the wrong term was being used.

When you use arguments such as that you invite the comparison, you practically beg for it.  You aren't trying to dialogue.

I wasn't trying to dialogue at that point.  The whole reason that I gave h2r a chance to review the language that he was using was that I was hoping he would tone it down enough to permit dialogue.  (My next post was a satirical attempt to show people who were going on about murdering babies how ridiculous they were being).  I didn't even mention the emotional langue that he was using until after he had called anyone who isn't with him a Nazi.

Opponents of abortion aren't stupid and they aren't wrong.  It is bad.  Objectively.  Quantifiably.  People who have abortions aren't generally excited about it, there's biological impacts that force emotional experiences on the woman, hormones that cause it to be a bad time.  It can have long term consequences.  Even when used to save the life of the mother it's not like the mother is happy about it.  It is a tragedy, deeply personal.  Have you held the crying 26 year old woman still mourning the loss after her abortion at 15?  I reject that there's anything casual about it from those that want abortions, and from those that do not.  It's just that the alternative, a government enforced abortion ban, is a million times worse.

Agreed on all points.  Actually, I made the same argument several posts ago.  Abortion is the least worst option.  Not something that anyone is jumping into joyfully.

And if the argument you use is "lol fetus isn't the same as baby;"

I've mentioned several times now, that wasn't an argument.  It was the first response to h2r's emotional opening post in this thread.

[wenchsenior]

This phrase always cracks me up.  Particularly when you pair it with 'science' in the same sentence.

Ok, carry on with your regularly scheduled tirade.

Trying to understand the miracle of [insert natural phenomena here], scientists formulate theories, perform experiments, observe results, reproduce results, arrive at conclusions, seek validation from others.  Again, casting aspersions as though you have a monopoly on reason is counter-productive.  Before we understood anything there was a time when we didn't understand it.  You stand on the shoulders of greatness, but you aren't all that great.  If I call post-tensioned concrete a miracle as an engineer, I'm of course talking about how well it does a job that we really needed it to do, while understanding more about it, how it works, and why, than can be conveyed in any other meaningful way using a single word.  If your cynicism for the natural world is so great that you don't realize we can understand everything about the fact that women contain a factory inside themselves for manufacturing brand new humans and still recognize it as miraculous, that that word doesn't have to mean anti-science, then I pity you.

I know I should stop feeding the troll but I believe deep down you can be a better person than this.

You appear to have misconstrued what I was saying.

h2r was specifically choosing incorrect language when starting this discussion for hyperbolic emotional impact rather than reason.  The language that he chose was incorrect and this weakened his argument from the get-go . . . but this was not in any way a refutation of his pro-life stance.  It was intended as a plea to keep the hyperbole down a bit as it doesn't really help in any way in a discussion.  (Sadly this failed, as h2r later called people who support the right to choose nazis and then called abortion genocide several times . . . similar hyperbolic arguments that appeal only to emotion rather than reason).

Do you genuinely not understand that suggesting a fetus and a baby are so different, scientifically, as to excuse the termination of a fetus from any moral wrongdoing, is just as hyperbolic and emotionally impactful as h2r's later language?  Are you really claiming that your outright dismissal of the actual reality of the practice you're defending is an appeal to reason rather than an emotional attack?  When you use arguments such as that you invite the comparison, you practically beg for it.  You aren't trying to dialogue.

Opponents of abortion aren't stupid and they aren't wrong. It is bad.  Objectively.  Quantifiably.  People who have abortions aren't generally excited about it, there's biological impacts that force emotional experiences on the woman, hormones that cause it to be a bad time.  It can have long term consequences.  Even when used to save the life of the mother it's not like the mother is happy about it.  It is a tragedy, deeply personal.  Have you held the crying 26 year old woman still mourning the loss after her abortion at 15?  I reject that there's anything casual about it from those that want abortions, and from those that do not.  It's just that the alternative, a government enforced abortion ban, is a million times worse.

And if the argument you use is "lol fetus isn't the same as baby;" I'm on your side and I lose my grip on reality in response to that.  It is a troll's response.  Feels bad and you should feel bad.

Sigh. You are just being astonishingly arrogant and self-righteous.   

Of course SOME abortions have the kind of consequences you describe here. However, there are plenty of women for whom there really ARE NOT any severe long-term emotional consequences.  Personally, I know several women who have gotten abortions (presumably I know more, but only 4 that I have discussed it with in depth).  One of them does have some lingering grief 20+ years later, and some regret over it.  The other 3 feel minor sadness, of the type that would be expected when making any tough and unpleasant decision, when all the potential outcomes would have been shitty.  Those women do NOT regret their choice, nor would they agree that the choice was "objectively bad".  They made the best decision at the time, with the options they had.

[Chesleygirl]

I would not vote for Roy Moore. (Although I don't live in Alabama).

[talltexan]

I assume some on this thread are Alabama voters who are genuinely torn about wanting to do the right thing to advance conservative causes and values. I urge you to consider this NR piece by a genuine conservative, David French: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454542/roy-moore-election-conservative-case-against-him

Basically, the GOP is so strong in Alabama that there is very little chance they wouldn't win the seat back if they give it up now. And the seat has very little value now when the Republican wave is coming and Democrats have to defend 25 seats in 2018. It's okay to say, "thanks, but no thanks" to this and turn in a blank ballot or write in Luther Strange (if you feel you have to show up to the polling place at all).

[PKFFW]

Agreed.  That's what I'm saying.  Special legal protections for marriage are unnecessary.  We can realize how we got here and understand that there is no rational argument for keeping them in place.  It's been pointed out by people who don't conform to the traditional concept of marriage that they are being treated unequally by the law, and that is obviously true, so the solution is simple, get rid of marriage as a legal device.

Or, and I know this might be a weird and wacky idea, how about getting religion out of legal matters?

It seems like rather a lot of work to come up with a whole new set of ways to formalise legal contracts, legislation, etc so that two people who wish to enter into a "marriage" like living situation can legally do so just to appease religious folk who want to keep the word marriage for themselves.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I assume some on this thread are Alabama voters who are genuinely torn about wanting to do the right thing to advance conservative causes and values. I urge you to consider this NR piece by a genuine conservative, David French: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454542/roy-moore-election-conservative-case-against-him

Basically, the GOP is so strong in Alabama that there is very little chance they wouldn't win the seat back if they give it up now. And the seat has very little value now when the Republican wave is coming and Democrats have to defend 25 seats in 2018. It's okay to say, "thanks, but no thanks" to this and turn in a blank ballot or write in Luther Strange (if you feel you have to show up to the polling place at all).

There's also a very good reason to believe electing democrats in deep red states gets a candidate that is far more likely to be moderate, which is a huge step in the *ahem* right direction.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Agreed.  That's what I'm saying.  Special legal protections for marriage are unnecessary.  We can realize how we got here and understand that there is no rational argument for keeping them in place.  It's been pointed out by people who don't conform to the traditional concept of marriage that they are being treated unequally by the law, and that is obviously true, so the solution is simple, get rid of marriage as a legal device.

Or, and I know this might be a weird and wacky idea, how about getting religion out of legal matters?

It seems like rather a lot of work to come up with a whole new set of ways to formalise legal contracts, legislation, etc so that two people who wish to enter into a "marriage" like living situation can legally do so just to appease religious folk who want to keep the word marriage for themselves.

Still discriminating against single people though.  And polygamists.

[PKFFW]

Still discriminating against single people though.  And polygamists.

Any single person has the right to choose to enter into a "marriage" like living arrangement so there is no discrimination there.

The law as presently written would still discriminate against polygamists.  That should be changed.  What living arrangements consenting adults would like to enter into should not be subject to religious dogma enacted as law.

[GuitarStv]

Still discriminating against single people though.  And polygamists.

Any single person has the right to choose to enter into a "marriage" like living arrangement so there is no discrimination there.

The law as presently written would still discriminate against polygamists.  That should be changed.  What living arrangements consenting adults would like to enter into should not be subject to religious dogma enacted as law.

I feel like polygamous marriage relationships would have somewhat more complicated divorce proceedings and rules for dividing assets.

[partgypsy]

I don't see the benefit of eliminating marriage as a legal construct. Marriage is a joining of two people's lives. People always have the option of not getting married. But alot of couples would like the benefits and protections that marriage conveys, everything from being on ones spouses healthcare, sharing deeds to a house, visiting oriviledges in hospital, custody of children, it goes on and on. It is a pretty unique legal partnership.
For example, I know a gay female couple who have two children. Their relationship is more stable and long lasting than many heterosexual couples. As marriage was not an option, they had a series of legal paperwork written up to approximate what spouses would have. It's not perfect or complete, and they acknowldege that most couples would not go through the trouble and expense if they couldn't do it through a marriage certificate. Originally, calling it same sex marriage "marriage", did seem strange to me. I was more comfortable calling it domestic partnership, and have marriage be something done in a church. Just the way I was raised.

[hoping2retire35]

Just to be clear I am not equivocating pro choice to Nazi. I did say, and I will restate it here, when nearly narly 1 million people die every year we typically call it genocide; ergo abortion in the US.

As to the title...Eh had to make it eye catching and summarize what a majority of voters are likely thinking in Alabama.

[Poundwise]

Dipping my toe into this. I want to point out that I personally know two women who desperately wanted children, yet had abortions, because the embryos were not healthy (one was a "blighted ovum" that stopped developing at the 8 week stage and just hung out for 2-3 weeks thereafter, alive but not growing) and they wanted to move forward with the process of trying again.  One had healthy children soon after, the other was never able to have children despite rounds of IVF.  Given the chance to do it over again, they would have chosen to do the same as they did. Their deepest sorrow is that there was no way to grow the embryos into healthy babies.

I also know a woman who opted to have two severely ill babies, one of whom died 11 months after birth, the other dying within weeks of birth.  She will carry the deep sadness to her grave, but she would not have chosen differently.

Despite my Christian faith, I would not support any policy that would increase the suffering of any of these women.

One thing that I wonder about is why more don't support easy and cheap access to contraception, education about reproduction, and support for families, which would be the surest way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions. 

[DarkandStormy]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/constitutional-amendments-roy-moore/index.html

^Some of the amendments Moore wants to do away with.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/kayla-moore-roy-rally-alabama-senate/index.html

Roy Moore's wife, Kayla, argued that her husband is no bigot at a Monday night campaign rally, saying that "one of our attorneys is a Jew."

Oh good.  The "I have black friends" defense.

-Wants to do away with all amendments after the Bill of Rights
-Believes homosexuals should be locked up for being homosexual
-Taught a course where he contended that women should not be allowed to run for public office or vote (as recently as 2011)
-Believes Muslims should be banned from serving in the U.S. Congress

Pedophile or not, this man is unfit for public office.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I don't see the benefit of eliminating marriage as a legal construct.

The privileged often fail to understand the benefit of eliminating their privilege.

Man, liberals have it easy, I don't even have to reason or come up with facts, this is great.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Roy Moore's wife, Kayla, argued that her husband is no bigot at a Monday night campaign rally, saying that "one of our attorneys is a Jew."

Oh good.  The "I have black friends" defense.

That comment can't be real, I'm laughing so hard.  A Jewish lawyer?  No way! Who ever heard of such a thing...Next you'll be claiming you see a Jewish doctor!  I love Alabama.

[DarkandStormy]

Roy Moore's wife, Kayla, argued that her husband is no bigot at a Monday night campaign rally, saying that "one of our attorneys is a Jew."

Oh good.  The "I have black friends" defense.

That comment can't be real, I'm laughing so hard.  A Jewish lawyer?  No way! Who ever heard of such a thing...Next you'll be claiming you see a Jewish doctor!  I love Alabama.

There is video.

Also - https://thinkprogress.org/speaker-at-moore-event-says-he-accidentally-went-with-moore-to-a-brothel-with-child-prostitutes-65c9819f8a1e/

One of the introductory speakers was Bill Staehle, who said he served with Moore in Vietnam. Staehle told the story of a night he spent with Moore and a third man, who he did not name. According to Staehle, it was the third man’s last night in Vietnam and the man invited them to a “private club” in the city to celebrate with “a couple of beers.”

Moore and Staehle agreed. According to Staehle, they didn’t expect there was anything untoward going on at the “private club” because “there were legitimate private clubs” in Vietnam. The third man drove them to the club in his Jeep.

Staehle said that, when he and Moore arrived, they soon realized the man had taken them to a brothel. The third man, Staehle suggested, essentially tricked them. “I could tell you what I saw but I don’t want to,” Staehle said mischievously.

“There were certainly pretty girls. And they were girls. They were young. Some were very young,” Staehle acknowledged. But according to Staehle, Moore was shocked by what he saw.

Great character witness there, Roy.

[zoltani]

Louis CK had an excellent bit about abortion in his last standout special. Not sure if it's still available on netflix but it worth watching.

[partgypsy]

I don't see the benefit of eliminating marriage as a legal construct.

The privileged often fail to understand the benefit of eliminating their privilege.

Man, liberals have it easy, I don't even have to reason or come up with facts, this is great.

Are you saying only liberals can get married? I didn't realize that. Or, what does being liberal have to do with anything I said? Actually nothing.
What I'm saying is, that you are saying there are issues with marriage, because not everyone can get married. The people who want to be able to get married, do not want marriage as a legal construct or an institution to go away. by saying to "solve" the problem by simply doing away with marriage, is kind of like Solomon who said to the two women who both claimed the same baby, to cut it down the middle. Except I think Solomon said it tongue in cheek.

Me personally, I wouldn't have a child unless I was married to that person. And in the same way, those benefits of marriage help same sex partners raise a family because they can more effectively pool resources and become a family unit. Raising children, in a stable family unit is a good thing, right? I would think any law that promoted that that didn't cost anything to other people was no skin off their back.

[DarkandStormy]

https://thinkprogress.org/alabamians-cry-voter-suppression-50ddc1b53b3a/

People in Alabama are being told they are "inactive" voters, despite voting last November.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/the-republican-overseeing-the-alabama-election-doesnt-think-voting-should-be-easy/

The GOP in Alabama has worked to suppress votes over the last decade.

[scottish]

 Is this not in violation of the US constitution?

[sol]

Is this not in violation of the US constitution?

Our constitutions is very, um, "flexible" when it comes to black people.

[scottish]

But... what about the 15th amendment?

[MasterStache]

Well polls are closed so we'll find out soon enough if we have another sexual perv in office. Conservatives are 1-1 so far.

[GuitarStv]

But... what about the 15th amendment?

This is a hallowed Republican vote manipulation tactic.  Implement measures to solve the non-existent problem of voter fraud that 'just happen to' impact black people more.