Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Alabama - derp! - bans abortion...
Quote | Reply
These idiots...

Quote:
State senators voted 25-6 for the bill that had overwhelmingly cleared the House of Representatives earlier this month. The legislation now goes to Gov. Kay Ivey, who will decide whether to sign the bill into law.
Ivey has not publicly said whether she will sign the bill if it's approved by lawmakers.
"The governor intends to withhold comment until it makes its way to her desk for signature," deputy press secretary Lori Jhons wrote in an email prior to Tuesday night's vote.

Hopefully the governor realizes this will only create a huge backlash and make it damn near impossible for any republican president to nominate RBG’s (RIP) replacement.

Oh, and that whole banning of abortions is fucking stupid too..

Fucking religion...

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This makes me think of a Neil Young song.


"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
why do so may people feel they have the right to dictate what others do with their bodies.
You have the right, and I'm glad your do, to decide what happens to you, but why the F. do you need to impose this on me.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Avago] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just had this discussion with a friend.

His whole argument stems from once a life is created, that life has rights. Fairly enough he then asked the question with that is when do you believe life is created.

I asked about rape and his answer was that he believes it is then the womens responsibility to give birth to that life as that life has rights. My reply was who has more "power" in their rights, an unborn child or a women who has "x" age, etc. He said it's the womens responsibility.

My take from that was when a women is born they inherit certain responsibilities no matter what happens to them. I simply disagree.

FWIW he is a conservative christian. I don't believe he is wrong at all, just that his opinions are vastly different from me.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Avago] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Certainly don't think it should be banned, but there should be a penalty of sorts (levy on procedure etc) to make people think twice about taking precautions. It shouldn't be as easy as going "whoops, off to the clinic." It's a living organism / potential human we're talking about.

Men can pay for their 10 second brain fade. It really isn't that hard to avoid.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [907Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I asked about rape and his answer was that he believes it is then the womens responsibility to give birth to that life as that life has rights. My reply was who has more "power" in their rights, an unborn child or a women who has "x" age, etc. He said it's the womens responsibility.

Yeah, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on this issue, but I really don't understand when people don't seem to be able to grasp the pro-life position. Disagree with it, sure. But it's fairly easy to understand.

A woman's right to choose what to do with her body doesn't outweigh the right of the person who's growing inside her to live. If two people have a physically dependent relationship, one doesn't get to kill the other and call it "their right to choose." If you had conjoined twins, the rights of one twin to choose what to do with their body wouldn't outweigh the right of the other twin to live. (I get that it's not a perfect analogy)

Plenty of room to disagree about when or if the unborn person attains the rights associated with personhood. But the concept is not difficult to understand. It's not about telling women what to do. It's about respecting the unalienable right to life of the unborn child, even if that interferes with the rights otherwise held by the mother.

This isn't to say that there isn't some segment of pro-lifers that just want to tell women what to do, just like there's probably some segment of pro-choicers who just want to tell old white men to eff' off.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 I am in the camp you describe as pro life, yet I am a reluctant pro choice.

Women are going to do it if they really want to. So I say give them the option but we should do a better job of educating them about the pros of allowing the child to live and be adopted. Having looked into the adoption system it made it quite clear how many couples are willing to raise/love those children.

Anyway pro choice but hoping that choice is giving life a chance and not termination of a possible life.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
abstinence works but you can still get raped.

As long as there is no reliable, cheap, semi-permanent, undetectable, easily reversed form of contraception (maybe the coil comes closest) it's a no-win situation.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://www.instagram.com/...rce=ig_web_copy_link

I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a serious problem with men telling women what they can do with their bodies

The piece of art outside this hospital in Qatar shows 14 stages from conception to birth

I think it's impossible to argue that in the initial stages that life is viable on its own

What's the earliest premie babies survive? 20 something weeks?

I'd buy the argument that outside of a life threatening condition to the mother that would result in her death after a fetus / baby could survive outside the womb abortions should be bannned

Prior to that though its difficult to make the case a living sustainable organism is being killed
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah. Only men are pro life. Men tell women what to do with their bodies.

WHY DO MEN HATE WOMEN?!?!?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I have a serious problem with men telling women what they can do with their bodies

I have a serious problem with continuing the frame the issue that way. This is not "men telling women" what to do. It's society deciding what abortion policy should be, just like society determines what vaccination policy should be, or various other medical and health related issues. We're generally past the point where the government is just a bunch of old white men. Men aren't the only ones who are pro-life, and not all women are pro-choice.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah but you’re a misogynistic, neo-nazi Cis male pig who deserves to die. So your opinion doesn’t matter.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Except that in this very specific instance, how many of the 27 were men.......
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://www.theguardian.com/...hite-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a serious problem with men telling women what they can do with their bodies

Those of us who are opposed to abortion aren't trying to tell women what to do with their bodies. First, the issue isn't the rights of the mother as much as the rights of the baby. If you believe an individual has rights (everyone does) and you believe an unborn child is a living being (not everyone does), then you can argue that the unborn baby has the right to live even if they can't defend themselves. The man and women made a choice to have sex (not in the cases of rape). That choice was made and now the rights of the unborn child have to be considered.

Second, a child isn't just a women's so men should have input which is not the same thing as telling. women what she can do with her body.
Last edited by: Sanuk: May 15, 19 4:50
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really wish that women hating men would stop fighting against abortion. I mean look at these rallies. All men.

Fuck men.








How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........

If only there was some demographic breakdown we could see of who voted these men in. I bet it was only men who voted for these WOMEN HATING MONSTERS!!!!

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
A woman's right to choose what to do with her body doesn't outweigh the right of the person who's growing inside her to live. If two people have a physically dependent relationship, one doesn't get to kill the other and call it "their right to choose." If you had conjoined twins, the rights of one twin to choose what to do with their body wouldn't outweigh the right of the other twin to live. (I get that it's not a perfect analogy)

Plenty of room to disagree about when or if the unborn person attains the rights associated with personhood. But the concept is not difficult to understand. It's not about telling women what to do. It's about respecting the unalienable right to life of the unborn child, even if that interferes with the rights otherwise held by the mother.

That's the simple nub of the issue. Do you go with
(a) the moment of conception. At that point you have a pinprick of cells which may or may not end up being viable, even if carried to term.
(b) the moment of heartbeat.
(c) the moment the "unborn person" (a description that is itself loaded) is viable outside the womb.

For elective abortions, to me (c) is the only answer that makes any sort of sense. It then has to be made more rigid though to become legislation by the election of a particular point (eg, in the UK, 24 weeks), just as legislation sets other fixed points for things where individuals may vary (eg age of consent, voting age).

For other cases, such as where there is a risk to the mother's life or a late diagnosis of a serious handicap, the argument is more nuanced. Risk to the mother's life presents a classic balance of who do you choose to save? That seems to me to be obviously a decision for the mother: if she wants to take the risk of carrying to term, so be it, and if she doesn't, she should not have to.

FWIW I regard phrases such as "the right to life of the unborn child" to be unhelpful if one wants to have a dispassionate debate about this, highly emotive, subject. Unless the foetus is at a

Serious handicap is perhaps the most difficult one. There, there is no risk to anyone else's health. Yet the balance is between the life of the child and the burden the parents would face. Some parents would perhaps see that as a gift, and not a burden, in which case fine. But for those who do not share that view it is difficult balance between the parents' freedom to live their lives as they choose and the foetus's right to be born.

FWIW I regard phrases such as "the right to life of the unborn child" as unhelpful if one wants to have a dispassionate debate about an emotive subject like this. For me, unless the unborn child is viable ex-utero, it has no "right" to life. The conjoined twins example is interesting, but conjoined twins tend to be mutually dependent, rather than there being one who is wholly dependent on another, and the other being able to survive independently if separated. So I don't think it offers much for this debate.

When our first daughter was born we spent some time in neonatal intensive care. The smallest delivery there was under a pound, delivered at 16 weeks. I don't know what the outcome was, as we were in and out quite quickly. Medicine can make very early deliveries viable these days, but often the resulting child has long term developmental issues.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........

Moreover, what Alabama (and Georgia) have done is aimed squarely at provoking litigation which will go to SCOTUS with a view to overturning Roe v Wade.

Ultimately, therefore, this will be decided by 7 men and 2 women.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........

The governor is a womens.

Also this...



- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Greg66] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Greg66 wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........

Moreover, what Alabama (and Georgia) have done is aimed squarely at provoking litigation which will go to SCOTUS with a view to overturning Roe v Wade.

Ultimately, therefore, this will be decided by 7 men and 2 women.

Men can represent women and vice versa.

See poll above and you will see that men and women support or oppose abortion in roughly equal numbers.

I’m totally for legal abortions but the pro-choice movement has been very disingenuous on this whole issue.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My issue is with people telling other people what they are allowed to do with their bodies.

Swimming Workout of the Day: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5784860#5784860;
Favourite Swim Sets: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...m.cgi?;post=5004659;
Unattainable goals for 2019/2020 season. https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6944848#p6944848
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........


You're missing my point. This is not a men against women issue. It's a government taking action to protect or impinge (or both) on personal rights (depending on which side you're on) issue.


Plus, those 25 men are the duly elected representatives of a whole bunch of men and women.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Greg66] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
FWIW I regard phrases such as "the right to life of the unborn child" as unhelpful if one wants to have a dispassionate debate about an emotive subject like this. For me, unless the unborn child is viable ex-utero, it has no "right" to life. The conjoined twins example is interesting, but conjoined twins tend to be mutually dependent, rather than there being one who is wholly dependent on another, and the other being able to survive independently if separated. So I don't think it offers much for this debate.

Well, that's fine, but obviously, that is just your opinion about when the right to life exists. The point of mentioning the "right to life of the unborn child" is to illustrate that this isn't just an issue of pro-life people wanting to tell women what to do. It's an issue of pro-life people wanting to protect the rights of the unborn child, as they see them. Got it, they and you disagree about what those rights are.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
My issue is with people telling other people what they are allowed to do with their bodies.

Do you carry this same opinion with all aspect of what people do with there bodies?

Drugs, food, suicide, etc.?

What about vaccines, medical care?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JasoninHalifax wrote:
My issue is with people telling other people what they are allowed to do with their bodies.

And the pro-life side would take issue with you framing this as if only the woman's body is involved in an abortion.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Drugs is manifestly different from suicide and vaccines

If you want to take drugs and are of sound mind and body. Knock yourself out if it doesn't harm others

If you are suicidal and thinking straight I. E. End of life treatment. Again knock yourself out

If you are mentally unwell, then I think an intervention due to mental health issues is called for. Then if determined OK and you want to check out, knock yourself out

Vaccines are a public health issue. You choosing not to vaccinate your child against measles could kill my child. That needs to be dealt with. So if you don't want to vaccinate, then your freedoms will be infringed to serve the greater good.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You choosing not to vaccinate your child against measles could kill my child. That needs to be dealt with. So if you don't want to vaccinate, then your freedoms will be infringed to serve the greater good.

And therein lies the messy argument about abortion. Pro lifers believe that a womens “choosing” what to do “with her body” infringes on the right of the “child” to live.

This isn’t some simple yes or no issue. It’s very messy.

Also, except in very rare circumstances, if someone finds themselves in need of an abortion they have made several bad decisions along the way before they even got pregnant. Abortion really isn’t about what women can do with their bodies, it’s about absolving them of taking responsibility for their poor choices.

It really is pro-choice. It’s pro-make-bad-choices-with-no-consequences.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For the most part, yes, except where it negatively affects or causes endangerment to other people. So drinking is fine, drinking and driving is not fine. Smoking in private is fine, smoking at the workplace is not. That doesn't mean that I don't think that certain things are stupid, but I don't think drug use, for example, should be criminalized. Refusal to vaccinate has the potential to cause endangerment, but as far as I know that isn't illegal yet.

"Allowed to do" is in the legal sense, of course. Morals and ethics are a separate discussion.

Of course, my comment was about this discussion here about men telling women what to do with their bodies. I have an equal issue with women telling other women what to do with their bodies, or women telling men what to do, or men telling other men.

Swimming Workout of the Day: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5784860#5784860;
Favourite Swim Sets: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...m.cgi?;post=5004659;
Unattainable goals for 2019/2020 season. https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6944848#p6944848
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"This isn’t some simple yes or no issue. It’s very messy.

Also, except in very rare circumstances, if someone finds themselves in need of an abortion they have made several bad decisions along the way before they even got pregnant. Abortion really isn’t about what women can do with their bodies, it’s about absolving them of taking responsibility for their poor choices.

It really is pro-choice. It’s pro-make-bad-choices-with-no-consequences"

This - x1000

I'm not religious at all however I feel the same. as a result of those poor choices i think the rug rat should have a chance at life.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
JasoninHalifax wrote:
My issue is with people telling other people what they are allowed to do with their bodies.

And the pro-life side would take issue with you framing this as if only the woman's body is involved in an abortion.

Of course, that isn't the only consideration that makes up my viewpoint. I haven't actually said what my stance on abortion is.

Swimming Workout of the Day: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5784860#5784860;
Favourite Swim Sets: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...m.cgi?;post=5004659;
Unattainable goals for 2019/2020 season. https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6944848#p6944848
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Greg66] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Greg66 wrote:
Moreover, what Alabama (and Georgia) have done is aimed squarely at provoking litigation which will go to SCOTUS with a view to overturning Roe v Wade.

Ultimately, therefore, this will be decided by 7 men and 2 women.

This is what is actually going on. The 2 states saw a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade and decided to go for broke - completely ban abortion. The reason they think they have a chance is this decision:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/...-two-state-dispute-4

SCOTUS recently overturn already established law, something that was not done very often in the past, and they did it for really no good reason. The original decision did not have any flaws, they just didn't like it politically. The fear/hope is that they will do it again for other things that they don't believe in morally or politically, and the bible thumping conservatives think abortion fits that bill.

Regardless of which side of abortion you are on, this should concern you. It means that nothing is really decided, there is no longer precedence. Anyone can push anything as high as they can to try to change the law's mind, even if it was previously decided. It is same thing that is going on in congress right now. That was started years ago and has just been elevated to a new level recently.

"...the street finds its own uses for things"
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........


If only there was some demographic breakdown we could see of who voted these men in. I bet it was only men who voted for these WOMEN HATING MONSTERS!!!!

When you realize banning abortion only harms poor and brown people...

Every single one of these men would send their daughters or mistresses to the north or Europe for a safe legal abortion. Most of them hope brown people die in back alley abortions they are forced to get
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"If two people have a physically dependent relationship, one doesn't get to kill the other and call it "their right to choose."

Does this law make for exceptions if the mother's health is at risk? Seems like if the carrying the infant could kill the mother, then someone outside of the two people are making it their choice.

My personal opinion is that elective abortions should happen before 12 weeks. If there is a medical issue with the infant, you get around 48 hours to make a decision. If the mothers life is at risk, then you can get the procedure done. (I think this is the European model).


Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scorpio516 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........


If only there was some demographic breakdown we could see of who voted these men in. I bet it was only men who voted for these WOMEN HATING MONSTERS!!!!

When you realize banning abortion only harms poor and brown people...

Every single one of these men would send their daughters or mistresses to the north or Europe for a safe legal abortion. Most of them hope brown people die in back alley abortions they are forced to get

I thought I had seen - but now can’t find it - that Georgia’s new law banned women travelling out state to obtain an abortion, under penalty of prison.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [907Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
907Tri wrote:

I asked about rape and his answer was that he believes it is then the womens responsibility to give birth to that life as that life has rights. My reply was who has more "power" in their rights, an unborn child or a women who has "x" age, etc. He said it's the womens responsibility.

Ask him who has responsibility for the care/feeding/$$$ once it's born.



907Tri wrote:
FWIW he is a conservative christian. I don't believe he is wrong at all, just that his opinions are vastly different from me.

I'm sure he believes that all women should be barefoot and speak when only spoken to. Too bad his ilk breeds.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scorpio516 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........


If only there was some demographic breakdown we could see of who voted these men in. I bet it was only men who voted for these WOMEN HATING MONSTERS!!!!

When you realize banning abortion only harms poor and brown people...

Every single one of these men would send their daughters or mistresses to the north or Europe for a safe legal abortion. Most of them hope brown people die in back alley abortions they are forced to get

Or intellectually dishonest people like you want to keep the brown and black population in check by reducing the number of live births.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:

My personal opinion is that elective abortions should happen before 12 weeks. If there is a medical issue with the infant, you get around 48 hours to make a decision. If the mothers life is at risk, then you can get the procedure done. (I think this is the European model).


Well that's rational. Ergo unacceptable
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Ask him who has responsibility for the care/feeding/$$$ once it's born. .

Its not even just this, it is also medical expenses. 2 years ago the GOP let funding for CHIP (child health insurance funding) lapse.

If you really cared about the health of children, this program would be something you would never let lapse. You cant in one breath say you care about the decision of the unborn child, and then when the child is 2 (still can survive on its own) say maybe this child shouldnt have health care.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
These idiots... Fucking religion...

Well it is Alabama.

https://www.al.com/...nd-worst-states.html
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So I disagree with this law.

However the way our country is designed to work no one should object to the law. If the people of Alabama want this to be the law of their state so be it, they have to deal with the consequences.

There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Anyone who cites to Roe either doesn't undertand the ruling or is intellectually dishonest.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"And the pro-life side would take issue with you framing this as if only the woman's body is involved in an abortion. "

You make a lot of good points, Slowguy, regarding both sides of the argument.

Most of the people, however, on the pro-life side of the argument don't display that they care much about life at all, while they do display that they care an awful lot about controlling people. So its a hard pill to swallow to say that this is about the right to life of a collection of non-sentient self replicating cells in a woman's womb.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BqbmqAtlMUE/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a serious problem with men telling women what they can do with their bodies

The piece of art outside this hospital in Qatar shows 14 stages from conception to birth

I think it's impossible to argue that in the initial stages that life is viable on its own

What's the earliest premie babies survive? 20 something weeks?

I'd buy the argument that outside of a life threatening condition to the mother that would result in her death after a fetus / baby could survive outside the womb abortions should be bannned

Prior to that though its difficult to make the case a living sustainable organism is being killed

We could probably settle this with science. So if the science was settled and the consensus viability age was 22.739 weeks, would you be OK banning abortion from that time on?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does Alabama allow Plan B birth control? Does this only apply to surgical abortions? Are IUD's now illegal? What about travel to states where it is legal? Would abortificients like RU486 be illegal? I see the majority party in Alabama being fully convinced on this issue, without being convincing. Regardless of one's opinion on the legality of abortion, we are blindly replaying the early 1800's in an approach to a political dissolution of this Union.
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 15, 19 6:52
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
"And the pro-life side would take issue with you framing this as if only the woman's body is involved in an abortion. "

You make a lot of good points, Slowguy, regarding both sides of the argument.

Most of the people, however, on the pro-life side of the argument don't display that they care much about life at all, while they do display that they care an awful lot about controlling people.

How do you arrive at that hypothesis?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Greg66] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"FWIW I regard phrases such as "the right to life of the unborn child" as unhelpful if one wants to have a dispassionate debate about an emotive subject like this. For me, unless the unborn child is viable ex-utero, it has no "right" to life. The conjoined twins example is interesting, but conjoined twins tend to be mutually dependent, rather than there being one who is wholly dependent on another, and the other being able to survive independently if separated. So I don't think it offers much for this debate. "

But even a child that is viable, or a child carried to full term, cannot survive "on its own". So I don't get the distinction of inside and outside the uterus. We are still talking a living being that cannot survive on its own.

When our first daughter was born we spent some time in neonatal intensive care. The smallest delivery there was under a pound, delivered at 16 weeks. I don't know what the outcome was, as we were in and out quite quickly. Medicine can make very early deliveries viable these days, but often the resulting child has long term developmental issues.

So is that a reason to kill it?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [907Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
907Tri wrote:
I just had this discussion with a friend.

His whole argument stems from once a life is created, that life has rights. Fairly enough he then asked the question with that is when do you believe life is created.

I asked about rape and his answer was that he believes it is then the womens responsibility to give birth to that life as that life has rights. My reply was who has more "power" in their rights, an unborn child or a women who has "x" age, etc. He said it's the womens responsibility.

My take from that was when a women is born they inherit certain responsibilities no matter what happens to them. I simply disagree.

FWIW he is a conservative christian. I don't believe he is wrong at all, just that his opinions are vastly different from me.

Did you ask your friend about what happens to the man who went in without protection? Women don’t get pregnant without the man so what are his responsibilities for the negligent dissemination of the insemination?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [bluemonkeytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Clearly tongue in cheek, but what if all the daughters of those representatives voting for this were suddenly the victims of rape?

How many high dollar cover up procedures you think would be had versus kids born?

Going to make it illegal to masturbate and shoot hundreds of kids down the shower drain? God killed that one guy for spilling his stuff instead of impregnating his sister in law.

I think we're out in left field these days. Got folks voting for this. Got folks wanting free college and a guaranteed $1000/month income. Just all sorts of crazy.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [DJRed] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes. I'd agree to a time, be it 12, 24 or whatever science determines is a viable limit

I'd also agree that that's reviewed as medical treatments improve viability from earlier dates
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [bluemonkeytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the earliest child birth survival outside of the womb is 22 weeks.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
I think the earliest child birth survival outside of the womb is 22 weeks.

21 according to the internets
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry if this was answered in the thread already but what's the genesis of pro-lifers identifying conception as the start of life? Is it written in the bible, just historical tradition? I'm just curious when it became established that so many people who were "pro-life" in the sense that they were willing to ascribe rights to a fetus that could override a mother's wishes, also held that those rights arose at conception.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
You choosing not to vaccinate your child against measles could kill my child. That needs to be dealt with. So if you don't want to vaccinate, then your freedoms will be infringed to serve the greater good.


And therein lies the messy argument about abortion. Pro lifers believe that a womens “choosing” what to do “with her body” infringes on the right of the “child” to live.

This isn’t some simple yes or no issue. It’s very messy.

Also, except in very rare circumstances, if someone finds themselves in need of an abortion they have made several bad decisions along the way before they even got pregnant. Abortion really isn’t about what women can do with their bodies, it’s about absolving them of taking responsibility for their poor choices.

It really is pro-choice. It’s pro-make-bad-choices-with-no-consequences.

Whilst, I mostly agree with you... I wouldn't say that there are no consequences to abortion.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Does this law make for exceptions if the mother's health is at risk? Seems like if the carrying the infant could kill the mother, then someone outside of the two people are making it their choice.

My personal opinion is that elective abortions should happen before 12 weeks. If there is a medical issue with the infant, you get around 48 hours to make a decision. If the mothers life is at risk, then you can get the procedure done. (I think this is the European model).



A doctor can decide for an abortion under this law but the decision will need review from another party. If they disagree with the doctor and the procedure has already taken place, the doctor can face up to 99 years of prison time. This will scare most physicians from performing the procedure in the first place I think unless there is a certain thought of harm to the mother from pregnancy complications.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scorpio516 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........


If only there was some demographic breakdown we could see of who voted these men in. I bet it was only men who voted for these WOMEN HATING MONSTERS!!!!


When you realize banning abortion only harms poor and brown people...

Poppycock.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
Sorry if this was answered in the thread already but what's the genesis of pro-lifers identifying conception as the start of life? Is it written in the bible, just historical tradition? I'm just curious when it became established that so many people who were "pro-life" in the sense that they were willing to ascribe rights to a fetus that could override a mother's wishes, also held that those rights arose at conception.

What is life? I would say that it starts when the sperm and the egg get together and the cells in the egg start multiplying.

If we found a single celled organism on Mars would we call that life? Sure as shit we would. Yet a human in developmental stages in a womb is not?

Poppycock.

Is it viable outside the womb? of course not, that doesn't make it any less alive though.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
When you realize banning abortion only harms poor and brown people...
Poppycock.

While "...only harms..." is a sloppy overstatement, this law disproportionately affects poor people. As many have pointed out, wealthy folks can much more easily procur abortion services out-of-state.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
BarryP wrote:
"And the pro-life side would take issue with you framing this as if only the woman's body is involved in an abortion. "

You make a lot of good points, Slowguy, regarding both sides of the argument.

Most of the people, however, on the pro-life side of the argument don't display that they care much about life at all, while they do display that they care an awful lot about controlling people.


How do you arrive at that hypothesis?

If the pro-life movement was about reducing abortions they would be at the forefront of sex education, including free, readily available, shameless contraception. They are generally opposed to those things. Hard to conclude that their agenda is driven by eliminating abortion. I would also guess there is a pretty high correlation between pro-life and support of the death penalty.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:

When you realize banning abortion only harms poor and brown people...
Poppycock.


While "...only harms..." is a sloppy overstatement, this law disproportionately affects poor people. As many have pointed out, wealthy folks can much more easily procur abortion services out-of-state.

I agree. I was taking issue with the sloppy overstatement.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Replying to this quote that I know you only quoted:


"Also, except in very rare circumstances, if someone finds themselves in need of an abortion they have made several bad decisions along the way before they even got pregnant. Abortion really isn’t about what women can do with their bodies, it’s about absolving them of taking responsibility for their poor choices."

Seriously? I am 38. I would estimate that about a third of the women my age that I'm close enough to have discussed this with have terminated pregnancies. If it was guys that ended up pregnant I'd guess that proportion would double. And it would include me.


The "several bad decisions" the OP referenced range from getting drunk at a party and having unprotected sex on one end to relying on malfunctioning prophylactics, relying on ineffective vasectomies, making the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy on the basis there's a good chance, though not a likelihood, that a child would be born with a genetic deformity. None of these are very rare circumstances. It seems to me that the OP's acknowledging rape victims, maybe, and then dividing the remaining world of women into bad actors who need abortions and good ones that don't. As someone who knows a lot of those "bad women" he's way off, and sounds incredibly sanctimonious.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thom wrote:
windywave wrote:
BarryP wrote:
"And the pro-life side would take issue with you framing this as if only the woman's body is involved in an abortion. "

You make a lot of good points, Slowguy, regarding both sides of the argument.

Most of the people, however, on the pro-life side of the argument don't display that they care much about life at all, while they do display that they care an awful lot about controlling people.


How do you arrive at that hypothesis?

If the pro-life movement was about reducing abortions they would be at the forefront of sex education, including free, readily available, shameless contraception. They are generally opposed to those things.

I think you're making an overly broad unsubstantiated claim.

Quote:
I would also guess there is a pretty high correlation between pro-life and support of the death penalty.

Arguendo that is true, that is germane how?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
burnthesheep wrote:
Clearly tongue in cheek...

Going to make it illegal to masturbate and shoot hundreds of kids down the shower drain?

tougue in cheek is ok.

Not understanding human biology is not ok.

And it would be millions. Not hundreds.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not going to debate when life begins, and what grade to assign that life in the hierarchy of importance. But lets see what happens when Alabama looses 10's or 100's of millions in business revenue, looks like there is going to be the state wide boycott that NC had over the rest room fiasco. Lets say they start heading to the shit pile of states and go bankrupt, are they going to change their minds like NC did? Or will they all sacrifice their standard of living for their beliefs? If this does not go federal and remains a state thing, I think it gets reversed with a stout boycott of the state..

I mean, most people are for woman's rights, so it is just a matter of voting the people out that are pushing the minority view on everyone here..
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My guess is that the Governator will shoot it down.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
Not going to debate when life begins, and what grade to assign that life in the hierarchy of importance. But lets see what happens when Alabama looses 10's or 100's of millions in business revenue, looks like there is going to be the state wide boycott that NC had over the rest room fiasco. Lets say they start heading to the shit pile of states and go bankrupt, are they going to change their minds like NC did? Or will they all sacrifice their standard of living for their beliefs? If this does not go federal and remains a state thing, I think it gets reversed with a stout boycott of the state..

I mean, most people are for woman's rights, so it is just a matter of voting the people out that are pushing the minority view on everyone here..

Well, considering they are ranked 49th out of 50 states...I think they are taking the it can't get much worse stance on that one.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alabama & Georgia... and Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee not far behind.
The US should just carve off the South-East and let them go their own way. I'd love to see how well their confederate conservative christian republic will fare.

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
You choosing not to vaccinate your child against measles could kill my child. That needs to be dealt with. So if you don't want to vaccinate, then your freedoms will be infringed to serve the greater good.


And therein lies the messy argument about abortion. Pro lifers believe that a womens “choosing” what to do “with her body” infringes on the right of the “child” to live.

This isn’t some simple yes or no issue. It’s very messy.

Also, except in very rare circumstances, if someone finds themselves in need of an abortion they have made several bad decisions along the way before they even got pregnant. Abortion really isn’t about what women can do with their bodies, it’s about absolving them of taking responsibility for their poor choices.

It really is pro-choice. It’s pro-make-bad-choices-with-no-consequences.

Whilst, I mostly agree with you... I wouldn't say that there are no consequences to abortion.

Agreed.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Guffaw wrote:
Alabama & Georgia... and Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee not far behind.
The US should just carve off the South-East and let them go their own way. I'd love to see how well their confederate conservative christian republic will fare.

How very tolerant of you.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

I mean, most people are for woman's rights, so it is just a matter of voting the people out that are pushing the minority view on everyone here..

Yet there are a lot of women who are opposed to abortion.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From HER wikipedia page:

Abortion and women's rights[edit]
In August 2018, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that blocked the Alabama Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act, Ivey reflected on her support for the state law while serving as Lieutenant Governor and said that "we should not let this discourage our steadfast commitment to protect the lives of the unborn, even if that means taking this case to the U.S. Supreme Court." She furthered that the ruling "clearly demonstrates why we need conservative justices on the Supreme Court" and expressed her support for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.[53]

- the act/case talked about here was about limiting a womens right to abortions during the second trimester. Obviously 6 weeks and 15 weeks are different.

-For waht it is worth, She is pro-death penalty (or at least against judges being able to over turn death penalty).
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Is it viable outside the womb? of course not, that doesn't make it any less alive though.

When people say "life" what they really mean is, "When is it a person."


Life started 4 billion years ago. Everything that is alive today is a split off of something that was alive back then. A sperm is also alive, until you shoot it outside of the body, and then it dies. Weeds are also alive, and we spray them with weed killer.

So we kill things. And we kill things that are part human. We also kill things that would potentially be human if the conditions are right.

Once a sperm fertilizes and egg, it is now something that will potentially be a separate human life. The question is, at what point should it have the right not to be killed.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just to pile on here - if the unborn has rights, then it has all rights accorded to a "person" which would include identification with a government, citizenship rights and of course, the right to bear arms. Any immigrant pregnant in Alabama is now carrying a US citizen by right and you can't deport a citizen for crimes committed by their parent right?

The mental gymnastics it takes to believe both in unfettered rights to bear arms and at the same time the rights to restrict choice to expectant mothers baffles me and yet they seem to go together more often than not.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
Is it viable outside the womb? of course not, that doesn't make it any less alive though.


When people say "life" what they really mean is, "When is it a person."


Life started 4 billion years ago. Everything that is alive today is a split off of something that was alive back then. A sperm is also alive, until you shoot it outside of the body, and then it dies. Weeds are also alive, and we spray them with weed killer.

So we kill things. And we kill things that are part human. We also kill things that would potentially be human if the conditions are right.

Once a sperm fertilizes and egg, it is now something that will potentially be a separate human life. The question is, at what point should it have the right not to be killed.


Some people.

Some people view a cow as a more valuable life than a human embryo. I find that messed up.

Regardless, I will restate my position. I am pro choice. And I would really prefer that more money and effort went into education on the choice of life --> adoption, rather than termination.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Last edited by: BLeP: May 15, 19 8:26
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
while this is a complex, layered issue, the solution is not that complex (or doesn't have to be). i empathize with the pro life position. and i would be pro life. 100 percent. if i ascribed to the religion that sits behind the pro life movement. "i knew you when you were in the womb." but life that begins at conception is a religious argument, and everyone - including those on this board - who's argue that it isn't have been, coincidentally, christians.

still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point. so, abortions are legal up until X months into pregnancy.

it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook. then we'll see how long those legislative hijinks continue.

done. topic: hard. solution: not that hard.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Having solved that. You can now move on to Iran.....
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [907Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
907Tri wrote:
I just had this discussion with a friend.

His whole argument stems from once a life is created, that life has rights. Fairly enough he then asked the question with that is when do you believe life is created.

I asked about rape and his answer was that he believes it is then the womens responsibility to give birth to that life as that life has rights. My reply was who has more "power" in their rights, an unborn child or a women who has "x" age, etc. He said it's the womens responsibility.

My take from that was when a women is born they inherit certain responsibilities no matter what happens to them. I simply disagree.

FWIW he is a conservative christian. I don't believe he is wrong at all, just that his opinions are vastly different from me.

How many unwanted children has your friend adopted? If the answer is zero, tell your friend for me he is a fucking hypocritical asshole. If it's one or more, never mind.

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
Having solved that. You can now move on to Iran.....

we largely solved mexico, canada, NATO, china, iran. the trick is to stop unsolving stuff we'd already solved.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [jkca1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jkca1 wrote:

How many unwanted children has your friend adopted? If the answer is zero, tell your friend for me he is a fucking hypocritical asshole. If it's one or more, never mind.

I wish I lived in the world that you live in where everything was either black or white.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be

You gloss over the fundamental point of contention. What is harder than it should be? Abortion is legal upto 1 second before birth or abortion is only legal for 1 second after conception?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Putting aside the religious argument, Chambliss said that abortions could only be provided "until the woman is known to be pregnant", so there's the level of intelligence of who is deciding these laws

the world's still turning? >>>>>>> the world's still turning
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Slowman wrote:
makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be


You gloss over the fundamental point of contention. What is harder than it should be? Abortion is legal upto 1 second before birth or abortion is only legal for 1 second after conception?

it's fundamentally wrong, under our form of government, for one religious majority to force its religion on everyone else. ascribing full fledged life status to a zygote is a religious decision. no can do. but it's also reasonable to expect some floor sense of responsibility out of a citizen; and to admit that at a certain point rights do flow to a fetus. what is that point? we pick a point. that's it. nobody is entirely happy. everyone must adjust. we all live in a society. together. if we can't agree to that then we've abdicated our right to call ourselves an average, let alone exceptional, nation.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Guffaw wrote:
Alabama & Georgia... and Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee not far behind.
The US should just carve off the South-East and let them go their own way. I'd love to see how well their confederate conservative christian republic will fare.


How very tolerant of you.

Not sure how his statement is tolerant or intolerant. They largely want to go their own way. It is perfectly tolerant to give them the legislative freedom that they desire. He may be making a judgment on their economc viability and the public policies, but that is different. Opinions are freely expressed. You started this thread with strong opinion. At some point when the federal government is no longer controlled by the GOP, many folks in the most conservative states will largely agree with Guffaw.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Not sure how his statement is tolerant or intolerant

Then I can’t help you.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
jkca1 wrote:


How many unwanted children has your friend adopted? If the answer is zero, tell your friend for me he is a fucking hypocritical asshole. If it's one or more, never mind.


I wish I lived in the world that you live in where everything was either black or white.

Instead of making abortion illegal, we should encourage people to adopt. We should make adoption easy, cheap and something to be proud of. If I didn't have two kids struggling daily with mental illness I would gladly add to my family. My mom and her sisters grew up in an orphanage. It was not pleasant. The beating did not stop, morale did not improve.

I hate the idea of abortion, but I hate the idea of the state telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies more.

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your opening statement:

"Oh, and that whole banning of abortions is fucking stupid too..
Fucking religion... "

Time to re-evaluate your role as the cosmic arbiter of tolerance. Your double standard is mind-boggling. I can't help you either.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yet there are a lot of women who are opposed to abortion. //

And there are a lot of people that are into eating other people, what is you point? I said "most" people are for the woman right to choose, and even more women than men are for that right. Are you trying to argue that just because a lot of people think something, it ought to outweigh the lot more group??
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Your opening statement:

"Oh, and that whole banning of abortions is fucking stupid too..
Fucking religion... "

Time to re-evaluate your role as the cosmic arbiter of tolerance. Your double standard is mind-boggling. I can't help you either.

Right, because disagreeing with people and wanting to purge people people from the country are exactly the same thing...

Like I said, I can’t help you.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you bothered to read my post, I prefaced it by saying that is largely the path many states are taking. "State's rights" is the clarion call when your party is out of power at the federal level. Many states in the South were so strongly leaning "state's rights" (bordering secessionist) when Obama was in power. "Calexit" is a thing now. It will swing even more strongly the other way in the future. At most Guffaw is a little early in basically echoing the desire of the members of those states, and taking it to a fully logical step. It is the path that we are taking, and this issue is merely one example.

Put another way, allowing a state fullest autonomy (even up to secession) is the highest form of tolerance, right? Modify the slatement only slightly, but express the same exact same sentiment.
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 15, 19 9:32
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
while this is a complex, layered issue, the solution is not that complex (or doesn't have to be). i empathize with the pro life position. and i would be pro life. 100 percent. if i ascribed to the religion that sits behind the pro life movement. "i knew you when you were in the womb." but life that begins at conception is a religious argument, and everyone - including those on this board - who's argue that it isn't have been, coincidentally, christians.

still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point. so, abortions are legal up until X months into pregnancy.

it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook. then we'll see how long those legislative hijinks continue.

done. topic: hard. solution: not that hard.

Agree^^

The abortion discussion is not about "telling women what to do with their bodies" or "getting involved in other people's vaginas". Those "arguments" are BS rhetoric that only serve to prove that the person who says them is not capable of rational discussion.

The abortion discussion is and should only be about at what point does the unborn child have the right to life. As Slowman says, some would say at inception, others say not till out of the womb. I would argue those are the fringe, most of us are somewhere in between. My college GF took the morning after pill after a night we made a risky decision. I don't see that as an abortion any more than the fact that my wife has an IUD in that makes it impossible for that fertilized egg to attach.

The timing discussion also handles the rape issue. If the designate time for rights to apply is 12 weeks then any rape situation can be handled long before then. Hell most are likely handled in the first day or week.

It really isn't that hard, the fringe characters of "at inception" and "out of the womb" are the people who make the noise and try to make it more difficult than it is.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
does anyone know:

if a minor has a baby and the father is also a minor, who takes legal responsibility for that baby?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [kiki] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kiki wrote:
does anyone know:

if a minor has a baby and the father is also a minor, who takes legal responsibility for that baby?

Depends on the state but generally since you’re not an adult you have no legal responsibility and can’t have the child taken from you.

Or you can become an emancipated minor.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
yeah.... the fucking politics of killing babies is always hard to swallow.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
Slowman wrote:
makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be


You gloss over the fundamental point of contention. What is harder than it should be? Abortion is legal upto 1 second before birth or abortion is only legal for 1 second after conception?

it's fundamentally wrong, under our form of government, for one religious majority to force its religion on everyone else. ascribing full fledged life status to a zygote is a religious decision. no can do. but it's also reasonable to expect some floor sense of responsibility out of a citizen; and to admit that at a certain point rights do flow to a fetus. what is that point? we pick a point. that's it. nobody is entirely happy. everyone must adjust. we all live in a society. together. if we can't agree to that then we've abdicated our right to call ourselves an average, let alone exceptional, nation.

I think ascribing religiosity to abortion opposition is a fundamental flaw in your position. As someone else said if we found a single cell organism on Mars we would call it life.

The latter part of your statement is true. People just don't want to agree on the point.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [A-A-Ron] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A-A-Ron wrote:
My college GF took the morning after pill after a night we made a risky decision. I don't see that as an abortion any more than the fact that my wife has an IUD in that makes it impossible for that fertilized egg to attach.

.

A friend who's wife had an IUD had an unexpected pregnancy. Let's go with, "improbable", not "impossible".

As for the morning after pill, if it was truly the morning after, then she likely wasn't even pregnant yet (assuming that all conditions were right for pregnancy in the first place).

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
A-A-Ron wrote:
My college GF took the morning after pill after a night we made a risky decision. I don't see that as an abortion any more than the fact that my wife has an IUD in that makes it impossible for that fertilized egg to attach.

.


A friend who's wife had an IUD had an unexpected pregnancy. Let's go with, "improbable", not "impossible".

As for the morning after pill, if it was truly the morning after, then she likely wasn't even pregnant yet (assuming that all conditions were right for pregnancy in the first place).

Yeah, I still take "precautions" to avoid any demon spawn.

I would agree she was most likely not pregnant. But as a Junior in college that was not a risk I wanted to take. I guess that is when I knew for sure I didn't buy into the "at conception" idea.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
//while this is a complex, layered issue, the solution is not that complex (or doesn't have to be). i empathize with the pro life position. and i would be pro life. 100 percent. if i ascribed to the religion that sits behind the pro life movement. "i knew you when you were in the womb." but life that begins at conception is a religious argument, and everyone - including those on this board - who's argue that it isn't have been, coincidentally, christians.

still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point. so, abortions are legal up until X months into pregnancy.

it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook. then we'll see how long those legislative hijinks continue.

done. topic: hard. solution: not that hard. //

Well, trying to get agreement on your simple "X months of pregnancy" is already a complicated issue. That said, I agree with what you've stated and, frankly, I believe most people do as well. Not the far left/far right. But most folks. I find the whole idea of abortion disgusting and unfortunate but I am pro-choice up to X months as well. I'd prefer the focus be placed on birth control services. I support Planned Parenthood - nothing to do with abortions but because they offer a service to young girls who are sexually active and cannot discuss the topic with their parents. These girls can go to PP on their own and get contraception and start sexual health monitoring. Abstinence is the best choice but, let's face it, those who are blathering on about pro-life and abstinence formed this view when they 'got religion' and not when they were young and sexually active. Funny how that works. I made some PP supportive comments on Facebook and was lambasted by some high school friends who are now strong pro-lifers advocating abstinence. Thing is, I knew them in high school and they were anything but abstinent.

I have two daughters and we've had to navigate this whole issue already. We took the approach to be open and honest with the girls and asked for the same in return. They both let us know when they felt it was time to get on birth control and we handled everything. As much as I hated the discussion, I'd hate dealing with a pregnant teen even more. Thankfully, I had the benefit of growing up with three older sisters so I understood the realities long before I had to deal with them.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
I think ascribing religiosity to abortion opposition is a fundamental flaw in your position. As someone else said if we found a single cell organism on Mars we would call it life. The latter part of your statement is true. People just don't want to agree on the point.

there's a difference between life and human life. we don't grant the bacterium that lives in your gut with the person who hosts the bacterium.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TriFortMill] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriFortMill wrote:
yeah.... the fucking politics of killing babies is always hard to swallow.

Here’s where I stand, and it pisses everyone off...

I believe that abortion is awful and the taking of a life, whatever you want to call that life (baby/fetus) is just semantics.

I also believe that abortion should be legal.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
An independent single-cell organism floating around on its independent own? Sure, most people would agree that's "life" (but very few would have any compunction about killing it, which I know isn't a great analogy because we're talking about the specialness of human here...but still).

The broader point is that we've got "science" and we've got "other." Science can tell us things about the physical development of zygotes and embyos, including the period in which most go from non-viable outside of the uterus to viable with a lot of help, but it can't tell us when as a society we should give that cluster of cells rights and how those rights should stack up against a mother's.

If you believe life begins at conception then you're relying on "other." 99% of times that appears to mean religion but if you got that unshakeable belief from somewhere else that's fine too. It doesn't mean it's reasonable for you to expect others to share that belief.

In Alabama's case though, we are absolutely talking about the imposition of religion.

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

"Human life has rights, and when someone takes those rights, that’s when we as government have to step in. When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Last edited by: Bretom: May 15, 19 10:35
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is the overwhelming majority viewpoint, except in small number of areas. Virtually nobody thinks abortion is good. Fighting to maintain the right to abortion is where the argument is. Finding an extremist on the internet doesn't change the fact that hundreds/thousands of my friends share your exact opinion.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
TriFortMill wrote:
yeah.... the fucking politics of killing babies is always hard to swallow.


Here’s where I stand, and it pisses everyone off...

I believe that abortion is awful and the taking of a life, whatever you want to call that life (baby/fetus) is just semantics.

I also believe that abortion should be legal.

Why does this piss people off?

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
I think ascribing religiosity to abortion opposition is a fundamental flaw in your position. As someone else said if we found a single cell organism on Mars we would call it life. The latter part of your statement is true. People just don't want to agree on the point.

there's a difference between life and human life. we don't grant the bacterium that lives in your gut with the person who hosts the bacterium.

Then what is it if it isn't life?

You could be an atheist and determine that conception is life and therefore be opposed to abortion.

It is the degree which people want to allow that life to grow and attain attributes that determines where they reside on the abortion spectrum.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
An independent single-cell organism floating around on its independent own? Sure, most people would agree that's "life" (but very few would have any compunction about killing it, which I know isn't a great analogy because we're talking about the specialness of human here...but still).

The broader point is that we've got "science" and we've got "other." Science can tell us things about the physical development of zygotes and embyos, including the period in which most go from non-viable outside of the uterus to viable with a lot of help, but it can't tell us when as a society we should give that cluster of cells rights and how those rights should stack up against a mother's.

If you believe life begins at conception then you're relying on "other." 99% of times that appears to mean religion but if you got that unshakeable belief from somewhere else that's fine too. It doesn't mean it's reasonable for you to expect others to share that belief.

In Alabama's case though, we are absolutely talking about the imposition of religion.

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

"Human life has rights, and when someone takes those rights, that’s when we as government have to step in. When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."

Well the 10 Commandments tell her not to murder people and I'll bet you a dollar that is what she would cite for supporting murder laws. Does that mean murder laws are an imposition of religion?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Any chance this abortion ban actually holds up at SCOTUS?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Any chance this abortion ban actually holds up at SCOTUS?[/quoote]

I would be gobsmacked if it survived.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [jkca1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jkca1 wrote:
BLeP wrote:
jkca1 wrote:


How many unwanted children has your friend adopted? If the answer is zero, tell your friend for me he is a fucking hypocritical asshole. If it's one or more, never mind.


I wish I lived in the world that you live in where everything was either black or white.


Instead of making abortion illegal, we should encourage people to adopt. We should make adoption easy, cheap and something to be proud of. If I didn't have two kids struggling daily with mental illness I would gladly add to my family. My mom and her sisters grew up in an orphanage. It was not pleasant. The beating did not stop, morale did not improve.

I hate the idea of abortion, but I hate the idea of the state telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies more.

Adoption doesn't have to be financially costly. People can adopt through the foster system in many circumstances with little if any out-of-pocket expenses.* The problem is that adopting through the foster system is an emotional roller coaster so long as potential reunification with a birth parent is on the table. I have a close friend who gave up on the process after, for the second time, a child that they had bonded with closely, considered part of their family, etc., was removed from their home to never be seen again. Based on stories I've heard from our social worker, our foster to adoption went smoothly. Nevertheless, it was still a three-year ride, with emotional ups and downs and uncertainties. You bond with the child, consider him or her part of the family, know the birth parents are complete fuck-ups and unfit, know that if the child is reunited that it will be for the worst, yet there is that lingering possibility that that birth parents can do what is minimally necessary for reunification, and that kills you.

*With regard to costs, during foster care, the state covered all medical expenses and care. In addition, there was a monthly stipend that pretty much covered food, diapers, some clothing, etc. (The stipend was around $450 per month 10 years ago.) For the adoption process, the state paid for a lawyer to fill out the paperwork and represent us in court. Our only expense with the process was the livescan fingerprint costs for the background check. about $40 each. After adoption, our child can still be covered by Medical, although we've always just included her on our insurance and never took advantage of the state coverage. We also get a monthly stipend (currently $760 per month but indexed to inflation) until she's 18. I was surprised about that last point when we were signing the adoption papers because I didn't expect it. I had just assumed everything would be just like our other kids. The social worker told us that the stipend was so that good families wouldn't refuse to adopt solely because they couldn't afford another kid. (The monthly stipend has always gone towards the kid's college education.She'll have close to $200k when she graduates.)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

" When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."

God often changes his mind on the miracle. Mysterious ways indeed.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If we are talking about an early stage embryo, one is a sentient being with feelings. The other one is unthinking, unfeeling, tissue, not much different than a mole on your skin.

Why do you think its messed up to care more about the cow?





"Some people view a cow as a more valuable life than a human embryo. I find that messed up. Some people view a cow as a more valuable life than a human embryo. I find that messed up. Some people view a cow as a more valuable life than a human embryo. I find that messed up."

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Last edited by: BarryP: May 15, 19 11:26
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Josh_CO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Josh_CO wrote:
Just to pile on here - if the unborn has rights, then it has all rights accorded to a "person" which would include identification with a government, citizenship rights and of course, the right to bear arms. Any immigrant pregnant in Alabama is now carrying a US citizen by right and you can't deport a citizen for crimes committed by their parent right?

The mental gymnastics it takes to believe both in unfettered rights to bear arms and at the same time the rights to restrict choice to expectant mothers baffles me and yet they seem to go together more often than not.
With so many people giving new born babies guns it only makes sense to arm a fetus.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Bretom wrote:
An independent single-cell organism floating around on its independent own? Sure, most people would agree that's "life" (but very few would have any compunction about killing it, which I know isn't a great analogy because we're talking about the specialness of human here...but still).


The broader point is that we've got "science" and we've got "other." Science can tell us things about the physical development of zygotes and embyos, including the period in which most go from non-viable outside of the uterus to viable with a lot of help, but it can't tell us when as a society we should give that cluster of cells rights and how those rights should stack up against a mother's.

If you believe life begins at conception then you're relying on "other." 99% of times that appears to mean religion but if you got that unshakeable belief from somewhere else that's fine too. It doesn't mean it's reasonable for you to expect others to share that belief.

In Alabama's case though, we are absolutely talking about the imposition of religion.

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

"Human life has rights, and when someone takes those rights, that’s when we as government have to step in. When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."


Well the 10 Commandments tell her not to murder people and I'll bet you a dollar that is what she would cite for supporting murder laws. Does that mean murder laws are an imposition of religion?


That's the right argument but there's a distinction. I can very easily imagine a religious person having no clear feelings about when life begins but for the fact they believe their religion has determined it's conception. On the other hand, I can't imagine a Christian who's on the fence about murder but for the Ten Commandments. So while outlawing murder happens to align with that particular Ten Commandment, which is probably of great satisfaction to Christians, it's not a decision we as a pluralistic society need to make based on religion. That's not true of this version of the abortion debate. It's not clear, as it is for murder, that tolerance of abortion will damage our society. I'm not going to attempt that balance but plenty of people would obviously argue that the right to abortion is a net benefit. So absent that clarity religion, or something very close to it, is the only reason to make conception the center of the issue and legislate accordingly.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [jkca1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jkca1 wrote:
907Tri wrote:
I just had this discussion with a friend.


His whole argument stems from once a life is created, that life has rights. Fairly enough he then asked the question with that is when do you believe life is created.

I asked about rape and his answer was that he believes it is then the womens responsibility to give birth to that life as that life has rights. My reply was who has more "power" in their rights, an unborn child or a women who has "x" age, etc. He said it's the womens responsibility.

My take from that was when a women is born they inherit certain responsibilities no matter what happens to them. I simply disagree.

FWIW he is a conservative christian. I don't believe he is wrong at all, just that his opinions are vastly different from me.


How many unwanted children has your friend adopted? If the answer is zero, tell your friend for me he is a fucking hypocritical asshole. If it's one or more, never mind.


Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just my opinion. One is the start of a human life.

The other is stupid cow.

I value human life. And even if it's just a bunch of cells now, it's potential is far greater.

If I was King of the world abortion wouldn't happen. Adoption would.

But alas I am not. So I reluctantly support choice but hope the right choice is made.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [kiki] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kiki wrote:
Bretom wrote:

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

" When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."


God often changes his mind on the miracle. Mysterious ways indeed.

Chambliss clearly cares only about controlling women's bodies. He is explicit about this. When asked about embryos created by IVF, so conceived lives according to some, he allows them because, "The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."

He only cares about controlling pregnancies, not about life.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Thom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The pro life movement does nothing to reduce abortions, nor does it do anything to ensure that children are cared for after they are born.

This isn't the only issue that they are in other people's business about what they should or should not be doing. Draw a venn diagram of the pro lifers and the anti same sex marriagers and see how much cross over you get.







Quote:

If the pro-life movement was about reducing abortions they would be at the forefront of sex education, including free, readily available, shameless contraception. They are generally opposed to those things. Hard to conclude that their agenda is driven by eliminating abortion. I would also guess there is a pretty high correlation between pro-life and support of the death penalty.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
That is the overwhelming majority viewpoint, except in small number of areas. Virtually nobody thinks abortion is good. Fighting to maintain the right to abortion is where the argument is. Finding an extremist on the internet doesn't change the fact that hundreds/thousands of my friends share your exact opinion.

So do you or your friends acknowledge that it is the taking of a life?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheRef65 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
TriFortMill wrote:
yeah.... the fucking politics of killing babies is always hard to swallow.


Here’s where I stand, and it pisses everyone off...

I believe that abortion is awful and the taking of a life, whatever you want to call that life (baby/fetus) is just semantics.

I also believe that abortion should be legal.

Why does this piss people off?

The acknowledgment that abortion is the killing of a baby.

I don’t beat around the bush with deceptive euphemisms.

Yes it’s killing. Yes it should remain legal.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
In Alabama's case though, we are absolutely talking about the imposition of religion.

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

"Human life has rights, and when someone takes those rights, that’s when we as government have to step in. When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."

Why? Because she said God created the life? Remove the underlined portion and everything else still stands on it's own.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What is so special about a fertilized egg compared to a non-fertilized egg? You called it "the start of human life," but that doesn't mean anything. What exactly is the difference that makes one more important than a cow, while the other can just be thrown in the garbage or flushed down the toilet?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
kiki wrote:
Bretom wrote:

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

" When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."


God often changes his mind on the miracle. Mysterious ways indeed.


Chambliss clearly cares only about controlling women's bodies. He is explicit about this. When asked about embryos created by IVF, so conceived lives according to some, he allows them because, "The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."

He only cares about controlling pregnancies, not about life.

I wonder what he has to say about the lost lives that get flushed down the toilet. It's a very disrespectful way to treat human remains.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [kiki] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kiki wrote:
chaparral wrote:
kiki wrote:
Bretom wrote:

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

" When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."


God often changes his mind on the miracle. Mysterious ways indeed.


Chambliss clearly cares only about controlling women's bodies. He is explicit about this. When asked about embryos created by IVF, so conceived lives according to some, he allows them because, "The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."

He only cares about controlling pregnancies, not about life.


I wonder what he has to say about the lost lives that get flushed down the toilet. It's a very disrespectful way to treat human remains.

He is very clear this is about controlling pregnancies, not about protecting life. I mean he says so.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
Bretom wrote:
In Alabama's case though, we are absolutely talking about the imposition of religion.

Clyde Chambliss, Senate Sponsor:

"Human life has rights, and when someone takes those rights, that’s when we as government have to step in. When God creates that life, that miracle of life inside the woman’s womb, it’s not our place as humans to extinguish that life. That’s what I believe."


Why? Because she said God created the life? Remove the underlined portion and everything else still stands on it's own.

It's a he, of course, and no it doesn't. If you don't have religion telling you life begins at conception and human rights attach at that point what do you have? Just a guy spouting something that seems "right to him"? That's what we're legislating on? Even when, as other posters have pointed out, his position is totally inconsistent on IVF embryos?

We don't pass laws that restrict the freedoms of what are, unquestionably, adult humans with a full-set of human rights based on what people think seems right to them. If science one day determined life begins at a fixed point in pregnancy and there's a defensible reason for attaching human rights at that point then I'll revisit. Until then we, as a society, have to navigate a grey area. Anyone who doesn't think it's grey is religious or obtuse.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Any chance this abortion ban actually holds up at SCOTUS?

I can only assume that the states that have passed the ban were waiting on the "right" president or at least the right SCOTUS makeup to pass them. I have to admit that I am surprised that the bans/legislation is actually being passed as I thought it was just accepted.

FWIW - I am of the mindset of others expressed here that I don't like the thought of abortion but feel that it is important to keep it legal. I do disagree with the poster who says that it is a racial issue for those who oppose it.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Any chance this abortion ban actually holds up at SCOTUS?

I was wondering what would happen if the pro-choice folks took a different approach. Let the red states go pass whatever they want. Don't challenge anything in court. Then it never goes to the Supreme Court.

Sure you'll have sections of the country where abortion is unavailable. Yes, availability will be higher for people with more means to travel. But now, by *ignoring* state governments that make restrictive abortion laws, you take the wind out of their sails.


On a side note, I do find it super hypocritical that the far right always has this focus on "strict constitutionalists" and not legislating from the bench. Except when it comes to abortion.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
What is so special about a fertilized egg compared to a non-fertilized egg? You called it "the start of human life," but that doesn't mean anything. What exactly is the difference that makes one more important than a cow, while the other can just be thrown in the garbage or flushed down the toilet?

Do we really need to discuss the difference between a fertilized egg and a non-fertilized egg?

A non-fertilized egg is not the start of human life. It's just an egg. Just as sperm is not the start of human life. It's just sperm.

Anyway, I have discussed this ad nauseum in the past. And this is why when we did IVF we didn't fertilize any more eggs than we were prepared to use.

Standard practice is to fertilize a bunch then freeze the leftovers. Great. Then what? Just throw them out later if we don't need them? We weren't ok with that.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If these people really cared about reducing abortions, they would keep them legal, not make them illegal.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Anyway, I have discussed this ad nauseum in the past."

Okay, since you won't answer, I will.

The only difference between a non fertilized egg and one that has been fertilized is that the fertilized one replicates. At some point it splits into two cells, then four, then eight, etc. But even then, it isn't much different than cancer. The difference is that at some point is BECOMES a person..........given the right environment. It still has to take in nutrients or it dies.

A fertilized egg is a potential person.
An unfertilized egg is a potential person.
A 5 year old girl is a potential mother......some day.

All of these things have potential to become people, but none of them actually are people. Not a little girl's body. Not a sperm. Not an egg. And not a fertilized egg.

All you really have is a *feeling* that it's a person, but it isn't. It's a small collection or replicating cells that, given the right conditions, will become a person in a few months. But what feels correct isn't actually correct, but it is understandable. We've evolved to feel a need to protect fetuses. This same feeling, unfortunately, is a close cousin to feeling the need to force women to carry their fetuses to term, which is also related to the catholic church's feeling that contraception shouldn't be used.

Feeling this way makes more babies.

More babies helps the species survive.

Organisms that feel this way outcompete organisms that don't.

But these are all just feelings. In reality a fertilized egg, in its present state, isn't much different than a tumor.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So little 12 year old "Amy" black girl in Montgmery with heart condition gets knocked up by her uncle, prognosis for girl is only 60% chance she will survive pregnancy what happens? Will there be legislative panel to determine if individual is high enough risk to die? What doctor would work under conditions to be threatened 99years? What if this were a little white rich girl, same thing?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
TriFortMill wrote:
yeah.... the fucking politics of killing babies is always hard to swallow.


Here’s where I stand, and it pisses everyone off...

I believe that abortion is awful and the taking of a life, whatever you want to call that life (baby/fetus) is just semantics.

I also believe that abortion should be legal.

Same here.

Unfortunately we don't live in Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. We're not a theocracy. I think that after a certain point in time that is a good while after conception and a good time before delivery, there's life. And it's sinful to after that point to dispose of it. However, in the US what I deem sinful isn't up for discussion in our laws. The law is clear. Also, we do have to seek a final and very difficult consensus that'll piss everyone off about what point in time that is.

Outside of that, one thing that always royally pisses me off about how opposition handles the issue is the same way they handle sex-ed.............just cover your ears and eyes and claim ignorance and "just don't do it". It's not a blend of figuring out where to legislate that point in time, but it's the total absence of meaningful adoption, childcare, medical coverage for mothers, and coverage and assistance for the born unwanted.

Basically, I really get the impression that it's "force them to have the kid, then once it's out.......fuck the kid". Not everyone, but a whole lot. Not through 1:1 conversation, but observing policy decisions and views by these people.

You can't be pro-life and then stand by while we reduce free/reduced rate school lunches and allow food debt shaming of kids in schools. You lose any moral high ground immediately.

Pro-life means a lot more than people think it does. It's pro-baby, pro-mother, pro-inmate, pro-cyclist on the road, pro-pedestrian, pro-don't drive like a damned selfish fool, pro-a-lot-more-things-than-most-anyone-wants-to-pay-for-to-actually-be-pro-life.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://www.msn.com/...pi89?ocid=spartanntp

not sure Alabama legislature really intended for all abortions to be banned for ever but more so to be part of the influence that overturns roe v. wade at the federal level. These new abortions bans will stir the waters and make their way to the SC so Roe can be looked at again and overturned.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don’t consider free lunches paid for by others to be indicative of compassion for kids.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ruby1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ruby1 wrote:
So little 12 year old "Amy" black girl in Montgmery with heart condition gets knocked up by her uncle, prognosis for girl is only 60% chance she will survive pregnancy what happens? Will there be legislative panel to determine if individual is high enough risk to die? What doctor would work under conditions to be threatened 99years? What if this were a little white rich girl, same thing?

Why are you asking me?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ruby1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If only it was a hypothetical. 11 years old, grandmother's boyfriend. Same facts as that Argentine case but now it's Ohio.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/...bS8%3d&i10c.dv=9



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
If only it was a hypothetical. 11 years old, grandmother's boyfriend. Same facts as that Argentine case but now it's Ohio.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/...bS8%3d&i10c.dv=9

Policy shouldn’t be decided on the most rare of circumstances.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheRef65 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
TriFortMill wrote:
yeah.... the fucking politics of killing babies is always hard to swallow.


Here’s where I stand, and it pisses everyone off...

I believe that abortion is awful and the taking of a life, whatever you want to call that life (baby/fetus) is just semantics.

I also believe that abortion should be legal.

Why does this piss people off?

Because he is a rebel who plays by his own rules and damnit it’s important that everyone know it! Too cool for school!

===============
Amen, bitches!
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can't tell your position. In an ideal world would we provide for the rarest of circumstances or not? Are you making the point that it's logistically too hard to legislate for every circumstance or arguing we shouldn't try?

Blanket policy shouldn't be dictated by the most rare of circumstances but the only reason you don't try to address them via exceptions to a blanket policy is laziness or ideology. There's no clearer case than Alabama. The last amendment they considered would have fixed for cases like this. The words were written, the cross-references were checked and they voted it down. Because the rights of a zygote override those of an 11 year old rape victim.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I can't tell your position.

I’ve stated my position very clearly at least twice in this thread.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
I can't tell your position.


I’ve stated my position very clearly at least twice in this thread.

Not on this specific point, this was new.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
I can't tell your position.


I’ve stated my position very clearly at least twice in this thread.

Not on this specific point, this was new.

You can’t tell from my clearly stated position on a abortion what I think about an 11 year old getting impregnated by her grandfather?

You really can’t figure that out?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
That is the overwhelming majority viewpoint, except in small number of areas. Virtually nobody thinks abortion is good. Fighting to maintain the right to abortion is where the argument is. Finding an extremist on the internet doesn't change the fact that hundreds/thousands of my friends share your exact opinion.

So do you or your friends acknowledge that it is the taking of a life?

That’s a pretty low bar. Would you not treat a tapeworm if you got one because it’s taking a life and requires you as a host?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
Duffy wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
That is the overwhelming majority viewpoint, except in small number of areas. Virtually nobody thinks abortion is good. Fighting to maintain the right to abortion is where the argument is. Finding an extremist on the internet doesn't change the fact that hundreds/thousands of my friends share your exact opinion.


So do you or your friends acknowledge that it is the taking of a life?


That’s a pretty low bar. Would you not treat a tapeworm if you got one because it’s taking a life and requires you as a host?


I would acknowledge that the tapeworm is a life and then I’d kill it.

When you have an abortion it’s a life and then you kill it.

And it should remain legal.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Last edited by: Duffy: May 15, 19 13:47
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I’ve scanned through almost 6 pages of discussion about an embryo’s right to life ..

But I think a lot of people have forgotten a couple of things - that abortions will always happen whether they are legal or not. And the choices it gives women - not in just choosing to have an abortion but the opportunities in life that she would have if she wasn’t raising a child (unwanted, potentially on her own). People have talked about adoption, like it’s such an easy thing to do, but have you spoken with anyone who has had no choice but to give up their child?

I think the discussion really needs to move past the definition of when life begins and more about the consequences of taking choices away from women ... abortions will continue to happen, and that means she will have to travel interstate or go underground (and the dangers of doing this). There are also the lost opportunities for the women - not only the lost potential of the unborn child.

The fact that 25 men supported banning abortion in Alabama proves to me that there’s a lack of empathy and understanding for the women who face making a harrowing decision for themselves and the unborn child. For men, they do and always will have the choice to walk away if they wish - women never will have this choice because it affects their bodies and their lives.

Unfortunately, I think this is only the beginning and more states will follow suit.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [snail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, acknowledge that it’s a life and abort away if you do choose.

I’m not going to argue when it becomes human or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

I’m just going to stipulate that it’s life and that people have the right to snuff that life out.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Standard practice is to fertilize a bunch then freeze the leftovers. Great. Then what? Just throw them out later if we don't need them? We weren't ok with that. //

Thats great for you. But why do you feel that you should be able to force your view on this on everyone else? Even though your view is in the minority? I have some friends that also did IVF. It didn't work the first 2 times, all viable fertilized eggs died. So on the 3rd try they went with the shotgun effect. They got 4 this time, tried it down to two, and have two great boys today that just turned 13. You no doubt know how expensive these procedures are, so you would just have forced them to not have kids? And congratulations on your success the first time around, perhaps if you had gotten to # 3 or 4 or more, you might have a different opinion. Or perhaps more empathy for those in that position..
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Yes, acknowledge that it’s a life and abort away if you do choose.

I’m not going to argue when it becomes human or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

I’m just going to stipulate that it’s life and that people have the right to snuff that life out.


At least you are consistent in your support of murder of an acknowledged life for convenience.

Do you support snuffing out old folks, folks with downs, folks with disabilities?

If more on the pro-abortion side of the aisle would acknowledge this is what is really happening, the support for the taking of life might dwindle even more.
Last edited by: ACE: May 15, 19 14:01
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
Standard practice is to fertilize a bunch then freeze the leftovers. Great. Then what? Just throw them out later if we don't need them? We weren't ok with that. //

Thats great for you. But why do you feel that you should be able to force your view on this on everyone else? Even though your view is in the minority? I have some friends that also did IVF. It didn't work the first 2 times, all viable fertilized eggs died. So on the 3rd try they went with the shotgun effect. They got 4 this time, tried it down to two, and have two great boys today that just turned 13. You no doubt know how expensive these procedures are, so you would just have forced them to not have kids? And congratulations on your success the first time around, perhaps if you had gotten to # 3 or 4 or more, you might have a different opinion. Or perhaps more empathy for those in that position..

At what point was I forcing my views on anyone?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Yes, acknowledge that it’s a life and abort away if you do choose.

I’m not going to argue when it becomes human or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

I’m just going to stipulate that it’s life and that people have the right to snuff that life out.


At least you are consistent in your support of murder of an acknowledged life for convenience.

Do you support snuffing out old folks, folks with downs, folks with disabilities?

If more on the pro-abortion side of the aisle would acknowledge this is what is really happening, the support for the taking of life might dwindle even more.


Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At what point was I forcing my views on anyone? //

Forgive me, I thought that you were voting pro life and defending this Alabama decision. My bad..
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Yes, acknowledge that it’s a life and abort away if you do choose.

I’m not going to argue when it becomes human or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

I’m just going to stipulate that it’s life and that people have the right to snuff that life out.


At least you are consistent in your support of murder of an acknowledged life for convenience.

Do you support snuffing out old folks, folks with downs, folks with disabilities?

If more on the pro-abortion side of the aisle would acknowledge this is what is really happening, the support for the taking of life might dwindle even more.

I don’t support abortion. I think abortion is awful and 99.99% of the time totally avoidable.

This issue is deeply personal to me and I’ve discussed why in the past on this forum and don’t care to rehash it now.

But I don’t think that abortion should be illegal.

I think abortions will happen and they should be done as safely as possible. I also think we should be working to make abortion extremely rare.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Yes, acknowledge that it’s a life and abort away if you do choose.

I’m not going to argue when it becomes human or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

I’m just going to stipulate that it’s life and that people have the right to snuff that life out.


At least you are consistent in your support of murder of an acknowledged life for convenience.

Do you support snuffing out old folks, folks with downs, folks with disabilities?

If more on the pro-abortion side of the aisle would acknowledge this is what is really happening, the support for the taking of life might dwindle even more.

I’m curious since you seem to feel really strongly about this- why do you think men are not proactively trying to be part of the solution to the unwanted pregnancy problem?

If it’s important to stop the killing shouldn’t there be a huge push for male birth control. If it’s really that important don’t you want to be able to ensure it never happens?

There have already been been multiple posts here about the bad decisions women made to get in this position- so clearly women are not reliable to some - so why are men not out in the street rallying for better birth control options?

There is plenty of data that long term female birth control like IUDs being available and free drops abortion rates. Imagine if something similar was made for men and both sides could make sure this doesn’t happen. Like how a car has both seatbelts and airbags to protect you.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
ACE wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Yes, acknowledge that it’s a life and abort away if you do choose.

I’m not going to argue when it becomes human or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

I’m just going to stipulate that it’s life and that people have the right to snuff that life out.


At least you are consistent in your support of murder of an acknowledged life for convenience.

Do you support snuffing out old folks, folks with downs, folks with disabilities?

If more on the pro-abortion side of the aisle would acknowledge this is what is really happening, the support for the taking of life might dwindle even more.


I’m curious since you seem to feel really strongly about this- why do you think men are not proactively trying to be part of the solution to the unwanted pregnancy problem?

If it’s important to stop the killing shouldn’t there be a huge push for male birth control. If it’s really that important don’t you want to be able to ensure it never happens?

There have already been been multiple posts here about the bad decisions women made to get in this position- so clearly women are not reliable to some - so why are men not out in the street rallying for better birth control options?

There is plenty of data that long term female birth control like IUDs being available and free drops abortion rates. Imagine if something similar was made for men and both sides could make sure this doesn’t happen. Like how a car has both seatbelts and airbags to protect you.

I am all for government paid for birth control for men and women, young and old and anything else you want to do to prevent pregnancy. Have the HS teacher demonstrate condoms, give the girls pills, give the boys pills if it helps.

Pass laws that require a man, once proven to be the father, to have to support the child, garnish his wages, make him take care of the child if they don't agree to put it up for adoption. (pretty sure we already do this)

My position has nothing to do with religion, what is right and wrong with regard to sexual activity or how much or how little some one has sex or is promiscuous.

But once you form a child in the womb, it is a person and as a society, we cannot simply kill it and call ourselves a caring, honest, decent society. We are barbaric if it gives us no pause to killing innocents for the sake of convenience.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Men benefit from abortion too.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can understand your viewpoint and feel similar for myself - although having almost died in pregnancy I think a lot of these views underestimate the actual risk of pregnancy and childbirth to the mother- so do not think I should decide for others.

But- as a data analyst- why are the anti-abortion groups so dead set on laws that don’t impact the outcome very much - when instead they could focus on programs that are proven with data to stop abortion?

I don’t think you will find any who think a willing drop in abortion rates is bad. Why not more birth control options for males and females? Why not college scholarships for birth mothers so they have a path forward after dedicating nearly a year of their life and lots of pain and vomit to keeping a child? How to we actually support the people in stopping this in a win win way? I just feel so much time and money is flushed down the toilet when the same funds could actually make a difference. And be done with good energy and a more positive experience for all.

What if a goal was set to willingly drop abortions by 50% by 2030 and we really dug in on that. I would think it would have a bigger impact on the abortion rate and a positive impact on many members of society.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
Forgive me, I thought that you were voting pro life and defending this Alabama decision. My bad..

I think Blep only really took issue with my position, which I admit is on the fringe, and even then we don't disagree on policy, only on attitude toward it.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I don’t think you will find any who think a willing drop in abortion rates is bad.

You sure about that?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I some ways I see this LEGALLY as analogous to the 2A debate where liberals work to narrow gun rights and legislate/tax around the edges (ammo, magazines, etc etc) as a means to diminish the law. (Yes, I realize the 2A is a constitutional right and Roe v Wade is not) but the tactics are similar. Don't explicitly make all abortions illegal but narrow as much as possible the legal mechanics thus 'practically' outlawing abortion.

Seems most 2A attacks fall apart in the courts just as it would seem these abortion efforts will fall apart in the courts. I hope the SCOTUS take the position that it's settled law, abortion remains legal but leave room for states to have SOME say in when an abortion can be performed, ie - up to 12 weeks, or 10 weeks, or 18 weeks. But within some narrow boundaries.

Wasn't it in Texas where they required abortions to be performed within x miles of a hospital thus, practically, outlawing abortions?

Will be interesting, legally. Morally and practically, not as interesting.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Because it's not about saving lives, it's about people not sinning.

Trust me, I used to share an office with an evangelical. Its never about results, but always about telling people what they can and cannot do.




Quote:
But- as a data analyst- why are the anti-abortion groups so dead set on laws that don’t impact the outcome very much - when instead they could focus on programs that are proven with data to stop abortion?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Yes, I realize the 2A is a constitutional right and Roe v Wade is not.

not quite right. 2A is an enumerated right. abortion is not, because, like a lot of things, it was not contemplated by the framers. the court found that the right to abortion is just as embedded in the constitution (that is, embedded in the amendments) as 2A, just, it's 14A that protects a women's "right to privacy".

but i believe as you do. 2A and 14A are rights, but are not absolute rights. 2A circumscribes itself in the second half of that amendment, which gun rights advocates treat as if it's not there at all. 14A advocates - as applied to the right to choose - sometimes treat this as an abuse of the right to choose.

bear in mind, roe v wade, when it was decided, gave states the right to prohibit the termination of pregnancies in the 3rd trimester. so, if you're alabama, go for it. make 3rd trimester abortions illegal.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point.

The first part is reasonable. The second part is only reasonable if you don't think that those rights flow to the unborn child at the moment of conception.

Quote:
it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook.

Arguing from the point of view or pro-lifers, this is nonsense. The state is not somehow obligated to provide for the child just because it denies you the right to kill the child. The state doesn't allow you to kill your neighbor. That doesn't mean the state is responsible for providing for all the financial obligations of your neighbor.

Quote:
it's fundamentally wrong, under our form of government, for one religious majority to force its religion on everyone else.

Sure, but it's not fundamentally wrong for any group of people with shared believes to pursue normal democratic processes to implement those beliefs. Religious groups aren't forcing their religious beliefs on the population. They are lobbying their governments to enact laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, just like every other interest group does. That's actually fundamental to the democratic process.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

So do you or your friends acknowledge that it is the taking of a life?


We acknowledge that we are terminating a preeganancy/aborting a fetus. If you wish to insist that we are "murdering a human", so be it, that's fine with me. They would acknowledge that also while being indifferent to the need to use Duffy-approved terminology. My wife and I clearly blocked fertilized eggs from being implanted. You can call us "baby killers" if you feel a need to. Life is funny and ubiquitous, Pro-Life is almost always "pro-fetus", and willfully indifferent to improving the life of people, especially the starving in other countries. As many have pointed out, lower poverty rates tracks very strongly with lower abortion rates. I prefer to lower abortion rates via better birth control and raised living standards while making it rarer but still legal.
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 15, 19 17:43
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point.


The first part is reasonable. The second part is only reasonable if you don't think that those rights flow to the unborn child at the moment of conception.

Quote:
it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook.


Arguing from the point of view or pro-lifers, this is nonsense. The state is not somehow obligated to provide for the child just because it denies you the right to kill the child. The state doesn't allow you to kill your neighbor. That doesn't mean the state is responsible for providing for all the financial obligations of your neighbor.

Quote:
it's fundamentally wrong, under our form of government, for one religious majority to force its religion on everyone else.


Sure, but it's not fundamentally wrong for any group of people with shared believes to pursue normal democratic processes to implement those beliefs. Religious groups aren't forcing their religious beliefs on the population. They are lobbying their governments to enact laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, just like every other interest group does. That's actually fundamental to the democratic process.


if a religious group uses its power to inflict its religious beliefs on others, that's 1) unconstitutional; and 2) uncool. if the religious right really wants to take a shellacking in 2020, it needs to get its way on this issue between now and the election.

it certainly is fundamentally wrong, in every conceivable way, including according to the very tenets of christianity. religious groups aren't, as you put it, "just like every other interest group." enforcement of a religion was specifically carved out as a named "peril" by our founding fathers. it's the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment. you can't force your religious views on me; and i can't keep you from exercising your own religious views.

it's certainly not current law to have anyone who impedes a lawful abortion from taking on the financial responsibility of raising the child he forces into the world. but making it law would be great! you're arguing against something i'm not stating. if the state kills someone unjustly, civil law absolutely calls for the state to make whole the victim's family. if the state infringes on someone's lawful right an abortion, then the state (or any actor) should bear the financial responsibility for raising that child. that will stop states cold from trying to force their religious majority views on the entire population.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: May 15, 19 17:42
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
We acknowledge that we are terminating a preeganancy/aborting a fetus.

Do you acknowledge that that is life?

Quote:
If you wish to insist that we are "murdering a human", so be it, that's fine with me.

I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)

Nowhere in any of my posts here did I use the words “murder” or “human”.

Quote:
They would acknowledge that also while being indifferent to the need to use Duffy-approved terminology.

I don’t have any “approved terminology. I’m interested in the terminology that people use. Again, I said this earlier, you can use whatever terminology you want. What I’m also interested in is knowing whether or not you think that aborting that ______________ is taking a life?

I say it is and I say this as someone who is not in favor of abortion being illegal (up to birth and in some cases after birth).

Quote:
My wife and I clearly blocked fertilized eggs from being implanted.

Ok.

Quote:
You can call us "baby killers" if you feel a need to.

I would never do any such thing. And there’s nothing I’ve posted here that would indicate that I would. You are doing some serious projecting and I’m really baffled as to where it’s coming from.

Quote:
Life is funny and ubiquitous, Pro-Life is almost always "pro-fetus", and willfully indifferent to improving the life of people, especially the starving in other countries.

I’m not “Pro-life” so I have no response for this.

Quote:
I prefer to lower abortion rates via better birth control and raised living standards while making it rarer but still legal.

Me too, which is exactly what I’ve said in this thread on numerous occasions.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)

you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You are doing some serious projecting and I’m really baffled as to where it’s coming from.


I'm guessing it stems from the semantic game you're simultaneously playing and claiming no part of.

Quote:
I don’t have any “approved terminology. I’m interested in the terminology that people use. Again, I said this earlier, you can use whatever terminology you want. What I’m also interested in is knowing whether or not you think that aborting that ______________ is taking a life?


You're insisting that abortion is "taking a life" when you know very well that phrase is as loaded a term as those you are distancing yourself from.

When I turn off the vasopressors on a patient believed to have no cortical function whatsoever, at the request of the power of attorney, would you describe that as me "taking a life?" Or would you describe catching a fish or picking fresh vegetables for dinner as "taking a life?" I'm guessing no.

Abortion in the vast majority of cases prevents a potentially viable independent person from developing. I think everyone can agree on that, and doesn't involve loaded terms that are synonymous with human-specific homicide or murder.

"I'm just a man, no more or no less; bad as the worst, good as the best" - W
Last edited by: sphere: May 15, 19 18:28
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)


you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.


Not me. I have not not once referred to that which is aborted as human.

You say I “keep conflating” implying that I’ve done it more than once. I haven’t done it at all. In fact I have been very careful NOT to.

Other people are conflating life with human life.

I have only used the term “life”. I pointed out that people use whatever terms they want and gave examples (fetus, zygote, baby.....).

You and oldandslow are seeing shit that just isn’t there.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Last edited by: Duffy: May 15, 19 18:24
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Quote:
You are doing some serious projecting and I’m really baffled as to where it’s coming from.


I'm guessing it stems from the semantic game you're simultaneously playing and claiming no part of.

Quote:
I don’t have any “approved terminology. I’m interested in the terminology that people use. Again, I said this earlier, you can use whatever terminology you want. What I’m also interested in is knowing whether or not you think that aborting that ______________ is taking a life?


You're insisting that abortion is "taking a life" when you know very well that phrase is as loaded a term as those you are distancing yourself from.

When I turn off the vasopressors on a patient believed to have no cortical function whatsoever, at the request of the power of attorney, would you describe that as me "taking a life?" Or would you describe catching a fish for dinner as "taking a life?" I'm guessing no.

Abortion in the vast majority of cases prevents a potentially viable independent person from developing. I think everyone can agree on that, and doesn't involve loaded terms that are synonymous with human-specific homicide or murder.


I’m saying that I believe that it’s taking a life. I’ve also stated now numerous times that other people use different terms for what that is. I’m not playing a semantic game, I’m trying to be as clear as possible what my view is.

I see abortion as taking a life. I also see it as something that should remain LEGAL up to birth (and in some cases after).

I have stated this very clearly.

Someone asked me about a treating a tapeworm. I said it’s taking a life and I’d go ahead and killing the fucking tapeworm. It’s a life. So is that thing in the womb that’s being aborted. It’s a life. Call it whatever the hell you want. I call it a “life”.

What I’m asking is what other people consider it.

I have also said that this subject is messy. The implication of that (just so I’m being clear) is that I don’t think there really is a right answer here.

I started this thread saying the law passed in Alabama is stupid and harmful.

Are you people not even reading my fucking words?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Last edited by: Duffy: May 15, 19 18:33
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)


you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.


Not me. I have not not once referred to that which is aborted as human.

You say I “keep conflating” implying that I’ve done it more than once. I haven’t done it at all. In fact I have been very careful NOT to.

Other people are conflating life with human life.

I have only used the term “life”. I pointed out that people use whatever terms they want and gave examples (fetus, zygote, baby.....).

You and oldandslow are seeing shit that just isn’t there.

my mistake. what you wrote was, "I believe that abortion is awful and the taking of a life." but you nevertheless think it should be legal. so, swatting a fly; getting an abortion; more or less the same thing. each is taking a life. in each case, regrettable but should be legal. do i get it now?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I personally don’t see abortion the same way that I see swatting a fly but you’re close enough.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For the record, you and I are in total agreement on all the points that matter. It just seems to me you're generating unnecessary conflict by using loaded terms. Killing a tapeworm isn't "taking a life" in the sense that the term has come to impart meaning. That term specifically implies killing another human being, another person, and if you asked 100 people what it means, upwards of 99% (exempting you, apparently) would understand that to mean killing a person. And a zygote isn't a person, even though it's a rudimentary form of human life that has potential to become a person.

Moral implications for destroying an embryo or zygote, yes. Of course. But not the same as "taking a life."

"I'm just a man, no more or no less; bad as the worst, good as the best" - W
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
That term specifically implies killing another human being, another person, and if you asked 100 people what it means, upwards of 99% (exempting you, apparently) would understand that to mean killing a person.

There are many forms of life but what we are discussing here is something that we all agree would become a human life.

But when it comes to abortion we all call it our preferred thing. Hard core pro lifers call it a baby or a human, others call it a zygote or a clump of cells.

These labels are used to help bolster their respective positions on this subject. If you are against abortion using the term “baby” for what gets aborted triggers a response. “It’s killing a baby!” (Please take note of the quote marks here and understand that I’m not saying it’s killing a baby, I’m quoting a hypothetical pro lifer) which puts the act in a much more negative light.

On the “other side” terms like zygote or clump of cell or unviable tissue mass are used to “dehumanize” that which is aborted and to make those who support abortion more comfortable with the act of abortion.

As for myself I don’t feel the need to trick myself with emotionally charged terms like “baby” or euphemism like “unviable tissue mass” or “reproductive healthcare services” in order to be comfortable with the subject matter.

Abortion is messy. Most of the time (NOT ALL OF THE TIME!!!!) it’s and awful thing to do by someone who has fucked up numerous times along the way. It’s gross.

I view that thing which is aborted as a “life” and the act of abortion is ending that “life”.

And I accept it as that.

To me this isn’t something that we should being trying to make ourselves feel better about. We should all feel really bad about it with our eyes wide open to what it is we are doing.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
It just seems to me you're generating unnecessary conflict by using loaded terms.

You think?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You and I agree on almost nothing, but I 100% agree with your POV on this.

However I'm glad Alabama went all-in. It is a losing strategy (for a really good POV on this the NY Times has an op-ed about traveling down this road before (asking the SC to determine when a life actually begins (and yes NYT Opinion page isn't middle of the road, but this piece was from a lawyer/constitutional perspective))) as SC REALLY doesn't want to get into the "when does life begin" discussion.

This has been coming for a while, even before DJT became POTUS and the SC went conservative (though I'm afraid the ultra-anti abortionists are in for another disappointment).

Roe is horrible law. But the alternative is untenable.

And as much as the ultra-left/pro-choice regardless of morality crowd is beyond reasoning with, the far right/every-life-is-sacred anti-abortionists have decided that this battle has no middle ground. Moderate conservatives are getting absolutely gutted for their "bridge too far" opines on the Alabama law.....literally going to the zygote = human argument regardless of the VAST grey area that exists due to risk/circumstance/viability.....

And the shit-show continues.....

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Goosedog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does trump just not know how birth works? Because I don't think he has any idea what a womb is.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)

you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.

This is sophistry on an almost unparalleled scale. There is life that if you genetically tested it would be human, that if it continues to grow will be born and be what you consider human. Pray tell when does the morphing into a human occur?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mopdahl wrote:

Roe is horrible law. But the alternative is untenable.

First off it is a court decision not a law, but I agree it is horrible. Not the outcome, but the actual decision.

How is it untenable? Each state would decide for itself what it wanted its abortion laws to be which would be an expression of the will of the people. I honestly don't see abortion being totally outlawed in any state (This Alabama law was explicitly designed to be taken to SCOTUS so that a heartbeat bill could be passed without worry of it being overturned). Now if SCOTUS banned abortion completely, which i would imagine would be difficult with this law and how the case should play out, then we'd be on the reverse of the coin with the Federal government impinging upon the rights of the states and then I'd have to bitch about that case.

At the end of the day it boils down to how old the baby is when people are comfortable killing it wantonly. Most people are in the 6 to 16 week range which will probably mean that is where all the states end up. Rape incest and life of the mother will always be longer than the recreational termination timeframe.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
if a religious group uses its power to inflict its religious beliefs on others, that's 1) unconstitutional; and 2) uncool.

Maybe yes to 2, but no to 1. It's unconstitutional for the government to infringe on the rights of the people to practice religion freely, or to make laws establishing a national religion. It's not unconstitutional for a bunch of Christians to lobby for policies that conform with their beliefs. It's not unconstitutional for legislators to rely on their religious beliefs to inform the way they view which laws should be passed or not passed. It's no more unconstitutional for religious people to "inflict" their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way than it is for someone who believes in a certain immigration policy or a certain health care policy to "inflict" their ideas on the country using the same mechanisms.

Now, if Congress got together and passed a law that said, "Wherefore the Christian God says we shall not murder, therefore abortion is illegal," sure, that would be unconstitutional. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Quote:
it's the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment. you can't force your religious views on me; and i can't keep you from exercising your own religious views.

Well, first, that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't prevent citizens from imposing their beliefs. It prevents the government from imposing on the rights of the citizens.

Second, I agree that I can't force you to believe in Christianity. I can't force you to participate in religious ceremonies or rites. I can, however, lobby my Congressman to pass laws that I feel are right, and I can make my decision on whether they are right or not using my religious beliefs.

Citizens are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when considering what laws to support, what politicians to vote for, etc.

Quote:
it's certainly not current law to have anyone who impedes a lawful abortion from taking on the financial responsibility of raising the child he forces into the world. but making it law would be great! you're arguing against something i'm not stating. if the state kills someone unjustly, civil law absolutely calls for the state to make whole the victim's family. if the state infringes on someone's lawful right an abortion, then the state (or any actor) should bear the financial responsibility for raising that child. that will stop states cold from trying to force their religious majority views on the entire population.

Well now you're changing your argument. I'm not arguing against something you didn't state. I'm arguing in direct response to what you DID state. Now you're talking about someone making it harder to get a lawful abortion. Before you talked about anyone (including the government) who takes "direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be." Those are two very different things, unless you are simply choosing to proceed from the viewpoint that any legislation that restricts abortion is inherently unlawful. Before, you were stating that if the government takes legislative action to make abortion harder than you deem that it should be, then the government should reasonably be required to assume responsibility for the financial burden of raising the child.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
There is life that if you genetically tested it would be human

of course. There's no doubt it is human life in the genetic sense, and in the sense of its potential.

But if you asked someone "do humans have gill slits", "do humans have tails" the answer is very likely no.

An embryo is genetically human but morphologically something different. It is not adapted to exist as a human, outside the womb, before whatever the current NICU viability is.

It's semantics but worth mentioning, because this seems to be one the big divides between the anti- and the choice side.

When you take the position that an embryo is human life in a full sense, the mother's volition downgrades steeply, she's now a carrier.

if your position is that an embryo is a human life form that is unviable, volition is enhanced, because up until the point of viability she can decide to terminate
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/14/alabama-abortion-ban-white-men-republicans

27 republicans. 25 men out of the 35 total voted for it......

So keep stating that it's men and women who are pro life but in this instance it was carried by men........

So, the bill's sponsor is a Republican woman in the lower chamber. It was signed by a Republican woman governor. In November, 59% of Alabamians voted to add anti-abortion language to the state's constitution (pretty sure 59% of Alabamian's aren't men). The bill passed in the state House by a margin of 74-3 (about 18 of the House are women, based on their website).

This is not a case of men telling women what to do with their bodies.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You and I agree on almost nothing...

Decriminalization of drugs
Atheist
Environmentalist
Equal rights for all people
Equal treatment under the law for all people
Pro-choice
Pro privaste ownership of firearms
For lower taxes and a smaller federal government
Believe that the vast majority of people should be responsible for their own well being
Hard work ethic
Pro free speech

Which of the above do you disagree with?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Anyone familiar with the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis (hint: it was one of the more interesting chapters in the book "Freakanomics").

If the hypothesis is correct, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, etc. will be even less desirable places in 15-20 years.

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
One of the proponents of this in the Senate is an OBGYN, which would normally mean they would know what they are talking about, but the first thing this senator did when they were elected was to repeal a law that was created because of death of one of his patients. He of course did not inform anyone that the law he was repealing was written because of what he did. And has been sued multiple times for patients dying.


Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)


you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.


This is sophistry on an almost unparalleled scale. There is life that if you genetically tested it would be human, that if it continues to grow will be born and be what you consider human. Pray tell when does the morphing into a human occur?

i think we both understand the issues pretty well. yes, if you tested a zygote genetically it would be human. just like a human hair, or skin cell. and yes, this zygote, along with all the zygotes in fertility labs that get flushed down the toilet could, under usual circumstances, grow into a fully vested human being, if all goes well. and yes, when it's considered human is the question. the christian right chooses to believe it's at conception (except in fertility clinics). that's fine. but it's a religious choice. i prefer not to be bound by your religious choice. so, we must agree, as a civil society when that point is. we could reach a suitable agreement on this. if you wanted.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:

I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a serious problem with men telling women what they can do with their bodies
so does that mean you don't support Roe vs Wade since the court was all male?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Garry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
so does that mean you don't support Roe vs Wade since the court was all male?

Since he said "men" and followed it up with "telling women what to do with their bodies," I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say no.

RvW was "men" followed by, "NOT telling women what to do with their bodies."



And before we go down the next rabbit hole, giving someone the freed to choose what to do with their own bodies is not the same as telling them what to do with their own bodies. Its the opposite.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Garry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
so does that mean you don't support Roe vs Wade since the court was all male?

A big swing and a miss. Roe v. Wade expanded the freedom for women to have control over their body. It didn't mandate abortions in any manner. Try again....
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Well, first, that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't prevent citizens from imposing their beliefs. It prevents the government from imposing on the rights of the citizens.

Second, I agree that I can't force you to believe in Christianity. I can't force you to participate in religious ceremonies or rites. I can, however, lobby my Congressman to pass laws that I feel are right, and I can make my decision on whether they are right or not using my religious beliefs.

Citizens are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when considering what laws to support, what politicians to vote for, etc.


the constitution does prevent citizens from imposing their religious beliefs. and the govt is the citizenry. there's a reason why i can't, by statute, take away all america's guns. it's the same reason why you can't, by statute, impose your will on someone else, if that will violates a person's 14th amendment rights.

Quote:
Well now you're changing your argument. I'm not arguing against something you didn't state. I'm arguing in direct response to what you DID state. Now you're talking about someone making it harder to get a lawful abortion. Before you talked about anyone (including the government) who takes "direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be." Those are two very different things, unless you are simply choosing to proceed from the viewpoint that any legislation that restricts abortion is inherently unlawful. Before, you were stating that if the government takes legislative action to make abortion harder than you deem that it should be, then the government should reasonably be required to assume responsibility for the financial burden of raising the child.


i don't believe i'm changing the argument. and i think you understand my meaning correctly. i presented my "fix" for this. if states restrict abortion via statute - and that statute is struck struck down, that is, the statute proves unconstitutional (not legal) - and the state has to bear the costs associated with its unconstitutional statute, then these types of legislative maneuvers will stop cold. and maybe we can get down to the business of a rational, civil, agreed-upon solution.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: May 16, 19 8:16
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/...-overturn-roe-v-wade

this law in Alabama and the other laws in the works all over the country banning or limiting abortion are just the vehicle to get it to the SC so they can either overturn or severally chip away at Roe v. Wade.

It's worth noting that even though Roe is settled precedent the SC has overturned settled cases in the past, one just recently all the way back to 1979, so its likely the Court will make a major change to abortion rights when these laws get there in the next year or so.

In the grand scheme of things, this may be Trumps most lasting legacy if Roe is overturned or gutted in the near future.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
We acknowledge that we are terminating a preeganancy/aborting a fetus.

Do you acknowledge that that is life?

What I’m also interested in is knowing whether or not you think that aborting that ______________ is taking a life?

As someone who had an abortion in high school, I'll answer. No, I do not acknowledge that it was life. It was a clump of cells. I have no regrets about doing it.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emaoconnor/state-heartbeat-abortion-ban-national-overturn-roe-v-wade

this law in Alabama and the other laws in the works all over the country banning or limiting abortion are just the vehicle to get it to the SC so they can either overturn or severally chip away at Roe v. Wade.

It's worth noting that even though Roe is settled precedent the SC has overturned settled cases in the past, one just recently all the way back to 1979, so its likely the Court will make a major change to abortion rights when these laws get there in the next year or so.

In the grand scheme of things, this may be Trumps most lasting legacy if Roe is overturned or gutted in the near future.

this court recently overturned the voting rights act. that's mid 60s legislation. this court is happy to go as far back as it wants. but, look, 50 or 75 years from now a lot of things are going to be different. this court can disenfranchise women, people of color, people who aren't christians, but society is marching in one direction. it might take a step or two back. but science, fact, reason, equality will out in the end. this won't be trump's legacy. we all know he doesn't give two spits about abortion. this is all about pitting one half of america against the other half. that is trump's legacy.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fair enough.

I got a girl pregnant in our teens. She aborted.

I consider it as ending a life. So does she.

My sister has had two abortions. She sees them as the ending of a life.

If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.

My son’s birth mother attempted to abort him and failed.

He starts high school this fall and is one of the few great joys in my life.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Fair enough.

I got a girl pregnant in our teens. She aborted.

I consider it as ending a life. So does she.

My sister has had two abortions. She sees them as the ending of a life.

If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.

My son’s birth mother attempted to abort him and failed.

He starts high school this fall and is one of the few great joys in my life.

Good for you. I'm adopted. I may not exist (in this form) if things were different in the late 1950s. I can separate the two.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
ACE wrote:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emaoconnor/state-heartbeat-abortion-ban-national-overturn-roe-v-wade

this law in Alabama and the other laws in the works all over the country banning or limiting abortion are just the vehicle to get it to the SC so they can either overturn or severally chip away at Roe v. Wade.

It's worth noting that even though Roe is settled precedent the SC has overturned settled cases in the past, one just recently all the way back to 1979, so its likely the Court will make a major change to abortion rights when these laws get there in the next year or so.

In the grand scheme of things, this may be Trumps most lasting legacy if Roe is overturned or gutted in the near future.


this court recently overturned the voting rights act. that's mid 60s legislation. this court is happy to go as far back as it wants. but, look, 50 or 75 years from now a lot of things are going to be different. this court can disenfranchise women, people of color, people who aren't christians, but society is marching in one direction. it might take a step or two back. but science, fact, reason, equality will out in the end. this won't be trump's legacy. we all know he doesn't give two spits about abortion. this is all about pitting one half of america against the other half. that is trump's legacy.


the generalities you mention will be the lefts talking points about Trump long after he is gone sure. But to substantively change the face of the Supreme Court to overturn settled precedence on one of if not the most battle hardened controversial areas of US society will be long lasting.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Fair enough.

I got a girl pregnant in our teens. She aborted.

I consider it as ending a life. So does she.

My sister has had two abortions. She sees them as the ending of a life.

If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.

My son’s birth mother attempted to abort him and failed.

He starts high school this fall and is one of the few great joys in my life.

i don't think it matters very much whether a 14 year old girl, or 24 or 34 year old woman, considers her abortion ending a life or ending a clump of cells. what matters is that she has the legal capacity to make that decision. and whether those who aid them should be free to do so, or should be locked up for the rest of their lives.

but, according to the alabama law, you are free to get an abortion, right up until you know you're pregnant. doesn't this reasoning cause you to want to become a member of alabama's christian right?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Fair enough.

I got a girl pregnant in our teens. She aborted.

I consider it as ending a life. So does she.

My sister has had two abortions. She sees them as the ending of a life.

If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.

My son’s birth mother attempted to abort him and failed.

He starts high school this fall and is one of the few great joys in my life.

Good for you. I'm adopted. I may not exist (in this form) if things were different in the late 1950s. I can separate the two.

And I can acknowledge that abortion ends a life and also should remain legal.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
i don't think it matters very much whether a 14 year old girl, or 24 or 34 year old woman, considers her abortion ending a life or ending a clump of cells. what matters is that she has the legal capacity to make that decision. and whether those who aid them should be free to do so, or should be locked up for the rest of their lives.

I agree and nothing I’ve posted here contradicts this.

Quote:
but, according to the alabama law, you are free to get an abortion, right up until you know you're pregnant. doesn't this reasoning cause you to want to become a member of alabama's christian right?

I don’t really get what your asking here, I’ll answer this way...

I have no desire to live in Alabama.

I’m not a Christian nor can even imagine that I ever will be.

I’m a “member of the right” and can’t imagine I ever will be.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

How is it untenable?


It is untenable for a host of reasons which you are ignoring. Here are a few:

The anti-abortion side has gained support largely by being able to fixate singularly on issues like late-term abortion ("partial-birth"_ or New York's recent law. The perceived battle-line has shifted dramatically from there to a point where support is MUCH less, and anti-abortion forces don't appreciate how much this will damage their position in the debate.

If this stands, it will mobilize the pro-choice side. A basic maxim of American politics is that every action creates a larger and unreasonable over-reaction. Pro-life forces have been beneficiaries of this for decades.

Having abortion be theoretically legal, but unobtainable in practice was the best-case situation for the anti-abortion side. That is about to change.

The Pro-choice side will be able to point to victims either incarcarated or in bondage to their unwanted pregnancy. That matters. Gay rights succeeded because people were willing to be visible. The State is now directly responsible for this.

People can easily travel to other states for an abortion, and such travel will be organized and funded if bans are enforced.

Religion continues to wane, and the "protection at conception" viewpoint remains profoundly based on conservative religious views. This remains true even if some atheists are strongly pro-life.

The "state's rights" argument continues to play out badly, as states turn to majoritarian parochialism to restrict their populace, while refusing to improve the actual qulaity of life of their voters. There was always a silly view that "Roe v. Wade was the problem, and everything would be great if only that didn't happen." That is stupid, get rid of Roe v. Wade, and the issue multiplies and becomes more systemic as every state plays out their own form of radicalization on the abortion debate.

These are several small ways in which this action is untenable. Taken together, it is difficulat to see any positive or sustainable resolution.
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 16, 19 8:45
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.


Also wanted to add that there are a lot of people who would exist otherwise if contraception was banned, or if people weren't such prudes about sex before marriage.

Hell, just changing interracial marriage laws leads to a whole lot of people who would have existed who never did, and a whole other group of people alive today who would never have existed.

Life is funny like that.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My prediction is this law gets thrown out by a district court and the supremes refuse to take the case.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)


you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.


This is sophistry on an almost unparalleled scale. There is life that if you genetically tested it would be human, that if it continues to grow will be born and be what you consider human. Pray tell when does the morphing into a human occur?

i think we both understand the issues pretty well. yes, if you tested a zygote genetically it would be human. just like a human hair, or skin cell. and yes, this zygote, along with all the zygotes in fertility labs that get flushed down the toilet could, under usual circumstances, grow into a fully vested human being, if all goes well. and yes, when it's considered human is the question. the christian right chooses to believe it's at conception (except in fertility clinics). that's fine. but it's a religious choice. i prefer not to be bound by your religious choice. so, we must agree, as a civil society when that point is. we could reach a suitable agreement on this. if you wanted.

This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intellectual honesty in acknowledging abortion terminates life. The debate is over when that is acceptable.

Simple question you skipped over.... when does this set of living cells that aren't human life in your opinion morph into "human life" in your opinion.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.


Also wanted to add that there are a lot of people who would exist otherwise if contraception was banned, or if people weren't such prudes about sex before marriage.

Hell, just changing interracial marriage laws leads to a whole lot of people who would have existed who never did, and a whole other group of people alive today who would never have existed.

Life is funny like that.

Thanks for sharing. This post gives great insight into your psyche.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:

so does that mean you don't support Roe vs Wade since the court was all male?


A big swing and a miss. Roe v. Wade expanded the freedom for women to have control over their body. It didn't mandate abortions in any manner. Try again....

Not to me, what the question was pertaining to, is the idea that men should have no opinions or any say on abortions. I find it odd when people say that or believe it, when it was a group of men's opinions that decided what a women could do with their bodies. So you can't say that men are unable to hold an opinion or make a law when it disagrees with you, but it's ok if they agree with you-
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.



Also wanted to add that there are a lot of people who would exist otherwise if contraception was banned, or if people weren't such prudes about sex before marriage.

Hell, just changing interracial marriage laws leads to a whole lot of people who would have existed who never did, and a whole other group of people alive today who would never have existed.

Life is funny like that.


Thanks for sharing. This post gives great insight into your psyche.

What??? Barry points out that contraception changes whether folks would be around or not. There are plenty of folks who have exactly that viewpoint and specifically lump all contraception into the abortion debate and oppose it for that reason. That's just a fact, which he is pointing out. Do you have a problem with it? Your post says nothing about BarryP or anyone (it is a petty attack with no other content), but "gives great insight into your psyche." Perhaps BarryP just triggers you....
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intellectual honesty in acknowledging abortion terminates life. The debate is over when that is acceptable. Simple question you skipped over.... when does this set of living cells that aren't human life in your opinion morph into "human life" in your opinion.

everybody on your side of this says the issue has nothing to do with religion.

at least one of us holds a degree in biology. so let's use that education. as you put it, dig into the DNA of a zygote. it's human DNA. so is the DNA in every cell in a human's body, including the skin cells we slough off every day. i hope we've dispensed with this argument.

as to when a zygote becomes a human, here's what we know: a zygote is not as sentient as you or i. ascribing full rights to a zygote is a religious decision. but ascribing zero rights to a fetus that's full term is also problematic. so, we pick a point in the middle, based on science, based on reason, we choose a reasonable accommodation that makes half our society happy, and angers the one-fourth that sit on either extreme end.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Garry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are changing what AndrewMc said, here it is: "I'm not sure what the answer is. I have a serious problem with men telling women what they can do with their bodies." He spoke of control, you twice rephrase it to the phrase "hold an opinion" and then sloppily conjoin it with "... or have any say". They are different. Anyone can have an opinion, in fact the LR is pretty much old male triathletes having endless opinions on matters that don't impact them. You are modifying his original statement. It remains, that overwhelmingly men are voting to control women's reproductive choices (as pointed out, many women support limiting other women's choices).



Garry wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:

so does that mean you don't support Roe vs Wade since the court was all male?


A big swing and a miss. Roe v. Wade expanded the freedom for women to have control over their body. It didn't mandate abortions in any manner. Try again....


Not to me, what the question was pertaining to, is the idea that men should have no opinions or any say on abortions. I find it odd when people say that or believe it, when it was a group of men's opinions that decided what a women could do with their bodies. So you can't say that men are unable to hold an opinion or make a law when it disagrees with you, but it's ok if they agree with you-
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intellectual honesty in acknowledging abortion terminates life. The debate is over when that is acceptable. Simple question you skipped over.... when does this set of living cells that aren't human life in your opinion morph into "human life" in your opinion.


so, we pick a point in the middle, based on science, based on reason, we choose a reasonable accommodation that makes half our society happy, and angers the one-fourth that sit on either extreme end.


so you in essence split the baby.

What about science says we as a society of empathetic, caring, individuals can't determine destroying the combination of living cells that will grow into a full formed human in nine months with no outside intervention is a bad thing, a thing we don't ever want to happen and put in place significant restrictions to allowing it to happen?

It's an easy cop out to say, "you're only against abortion because of religion" How about a thoughtful humanist who values life in our society and has come to the conclusion that as a society we shouldn't destroy potential life and after a certain time it is absolutely destroying human life. Those 3D sonograms at 20 weeks are darn cool and you can see the baby's eyes, feet, toes, nose etc. For someone to look at one of those and say its not a baby is flat out laughable.

We as society decided gladiator games are no longer acceptable ( too barbaric)
We as society decided no more burning folks at the stake.

It doesn't require adherence to a religion to be a good person, see value in life and have empathy for the unborn. you make the argument Christians make against atheists..." how can you be a good person without god?" How could you possibly be for protecting the unborn unless its based on religion. Well, you just can.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am not religious. I believe that a zygote is a human life.

Religion has nothing to do with it whatsoever for me so your claim that it's always about religion is false.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
I am not religious. I believe that a zygote is a human life.

Religion has nothing to do with it whatsoever for me so your claim that it's always about religion is false.

Agree, that is a lazy antiquated argument.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intellectual honesty in acknowledging abortion terminates life. The debate is over when that is acceptable. Simple question you skipped over.... when does this set of living cells that aren't human life in your opinion morph into "human life" in your opinion.

everybody on your side of this says the issue has nothing to do with religion.

at least one of us holds a degree in biology. so let's use that education. as you put it, dig into the DNA of a zygote. it's human DNA. so is the DNA in every cell in a human's body, including the skin cells we slough off every day. i hope we've dispensed with this argument.

as to when a zygote becomes a human, here's what we know: a zygote is not as sentient as you or i. ascribing full rights to a zygote is a religious decision. but ascribing zero rights to a fetus that's full term is also problematic. so, we pick a point in the middle, based on science, based on reason, we choose a reasonable accommodation that makes half our society happy, and angers the one-fourth that sit on either extreme end.

My side? Pray tell what is my side since I evidently have turned into an uber religious strident pro-life activist unbeknownst to me. I just think it is disingenuous to say life is not being terminated.

Pulling the plug on someone taking a "human life" or no? I'm still trying to understand where the transformation occurs since you use sentience as your example.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
I am not religious. I believe that a zygote is a human life.

Religion has nothing to do with it whatsoever for me so your claim that it's always about religion is false.


But if he changed it from "always about religion" to "very strongly correlated with religion" it would be true, right? Attitudes about abortion track very strongly with religious beliefs (especially with certain denominations). Your particular situation in no way affects that (well, since you are one of hundreds of millions in North America, it affects it 1by <0.000001%). Here, from 2012. It is likely that the correlation between religiousity and pro-life opinion has become stronger since then:




Last edited by: oldandslow: May 16, 19 10:24
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Duffy wrote:
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.



Also wanted to add that there are a lot of people who would exist otherwise if contraception was banned, or if people weren't such prudes about sex before marriage.

Hell, just changing interracial marriage laws leads to a whole lot of people who would have existed who never did, and a whole other group of people alive today who would never have existed.

Life is funny like that.


Thanks for sharing. This post gives great insight into your psyche.

What??? Barry points out that contraception changes whether folks would be around or not. There are plenty of folks who have exactly that viewpoint and specifically lump all contraception into the abortion debate and oppose it for that reason. That's just a fact, which he is pointing out. Do you have a problem with it? Your post says nothing about BarryP or anyone (it is a petty attack with no other content), but "gives great insight into your psyche." Perhaps BarryP just triggers you....

Have I ever written anything on this forum ever in the history of Duffy posts that would suggest that I’m opposed to the use of contraceptives?

The insight into Barry’s psyche is that HE is equating contraception with abortion, just like the religious right he opposes.

I see contraception and abortion as two separate things.

Contraception prevents an egg from being fertilized. If a couple does not want to have a baby they should refrain from vaginal intercourse or use contraception. This should be encouraged.

Abortion ends the life of an already fertilized egg. If a couple does not want to have a baby and they just couldn’t refrain from vaginal intercourse, didn’t use contraception or used it improperly, or in the very rare circumstance that properly used contraception didn’t work then they should have the right to an abortion if the pregnant lady in question wants to.

This should NOT be encouraged but should remain legal.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mopdahl wrote:
You and I agree on almost nothing, but I 100% agree with your POV on this.

However I'm glad Alabama went all-in. It is a losing strategy (for a really good POV on this the NY Times has an op-ed about traveling down this road before (asking the SC to determine when a life actually begins (and yes NYT Opinion page isn't middle of the road, but this piece was from a lawyer/constitutional perspective))) as SC REALLY doesn't want to get into the "when does life begin" discussion.

This has been coming for a while, even before DJT became POTUS and the SC went conservative (though I'm afraid the ultra-anti abortionists are in for another disappointment).

Roe is horrible law. But the alternative is untenable.

And as much as the ultra-left/pro-choice regardless of morality crowd is beyond reasoning with, the far right/every-life-is-sacred anti-abortionists have decided that this battle has no middle ground. Moderate conservatives are getting absolutely gutted for their "bridge too far" opines on the Alabama law.....literally going to the zygote = human argument regardless of the VAST grey area that exists due to risk/circumstance/viability.....

And the shit-show continues.....

I'm with you. I like this summary of the issue. Well said.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intellectual honesty in acknowledging abortion terminates life. The debate is over when that is acceptable. Simple question you skipped over.... when does this set of living cells that aren't human life in your opinion morph into "human life" in your opinion.


everybody on your side of this says the issue has nothing to do with religion.

at least one of us holds a degree in biology. so let's use that education. as you put it, dig into the DNA of a zygote. it's human DNA. so is the DNA in every cell in a human's body, including the skin cells we slough off every day. i hope we've dispensed with this argument.

as to when a zygote becomes a human, here's what we know: a zygote is not as sentient as you or i. ascribing full rights to a zygote is a religious decision. but ascribing zero rights to a fetus that's full term is also problematic. so, we pick a point in the middle, based on science, based on reason, we choose a reasonable accommodation that makes half our society happy, and angers the one-fourth that sit on either extreme end.

Permit me to interject here with an example of how the law struggles with the biology in this area.

In some jurisdictions, it is a criminal offense to kill an unborn child. In many of those jurisdictions, the unborn child needs to be "viable" at the time of the killing for it to be murder. But, many other jurisdictions do not have that requirement. Finally, a handful of jurisdictions do not provide any criminal protection for the unborn child. So, how can the law call it murder when a perp shoots a pregnant woman, killing the unborn child, but, it is not murder when a doctor ends the pregnancy at the same stage of development?

Don't mistake my position here. I do NOT believe in outlawing abortion. I am morally opposed to abortion, but, absolutely, positively, think it needs to be an individual's own moral decision, not something for the law to dictate.

But, see above for how the law struggles here.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
The insight into Barry’s psyche is that HE is equating contraception with abortion,.......


Uh, no I didn't. I equated it to resulting in people not being born, which is what you referenced in your post and I responded to.


I'm not saying abortion is the same as contraception, but they are certainly the same with respect to the idea that they both lead to different people existing or not existing depending on what laws are in place. So I suggest you let that argument go and, instead, focus on what are actually relevant distinctions.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I equated it to resulting in people not being born...

Yes, yes you did.

I just said hi to a lady for whom I held open a door. The interaction did not result in a person being born.

This is fun!

What other activities don’t result in birth? We could go on all day!

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Have I ever written anything on this forum ever in the history of Duffy posts that would suggest that I’m opposed to the use of contraceptives?

The insight into Barry’s psyche is that HE is equating contraception with abortion, just like the religious right he opposes.

I see contraception and abortion as two separate things.

Sigh, Barry wasn't saying that you were opposed to contraceptives, and he was merely pointing out that some people are (an indisputable fact). The thread had meandered from fetal/women's rights and "what is life" to a rumination on the loss of potential humans that may occur due to abortion. Barry merely pointed out that a reliance on that also logically leads to opposition to contraception (see the Catholic Church). He doesn't agree with that viewpoint, and also never said that you did. That argument came up, and he commented on the weakness of that particular approach. You have made your opinion on this abundantly clear. Sometimes the thread tangents aren't about all about you....
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
He didn’t say most. He said all.

Words have meanings.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:
Have I ever written anything on this forum ever in the history of Duffy posts that would suggest that I’m opposed to the use of contraceptives?

The insight into Barry’s psyche is that HE is equating contraception with abortion, just like the religious right he opposes.

I see contraception and abortion as two separate things.

Sigh, Barry wasn't saying that you were opposed to contraceptives, and he was merely pointing out that some people are (an indisputable fact). The thread had meandered from fetal/women's rights and "what is life" to a rumination on the loss of potential humans that may occur due to abortion. Barry merely pointed out that a reliance on that also logically leads to opposition to contraception (see the Catholic Church). He doesn't agree with that viewpoint, and also never said that you did. That argument came up, and he commented on the weakness of that particular approach. You have made your opinion on this abundantly clear. Sometimes the thread tangents aren't about all about you....

It’s very strange that i can repeatedly exclaim in no uncertain terms that I’m pro choice and want abortion to remain legal, beyond the point during pregnancy that most pro choice people tap out, and the only people on this forum who are pissed off at me are the pro choice liberals.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
He didn’t say most. He said all.

Words have meanings.

Of course. Now that we are in agreement, I take it that you agree with the words that I used, right? The point stands, religious outlook is a core aspect of this debate. I take it that you take similar exception to windywave's overbroad statement: "This has nothing to do with religion." Compare with your's" "Religion has nothing to do with it whatsoever FOR ME (capitalization added)" which is presumably accurate, but far less important as a singular occurance.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intellectual honesty in acknowledging abortion terminates life. The debate is over when that is acceptable. Simple question you skipped over.... when does this set of living cells that aren't human life in your opinion morph into "human life" in your opinion.


so, we pick a point in the middle, based on science, based on reason, we choose a reasonable accommodation that makes half our society happy, and angers the one-fourth that sit on either extreme end.


so you in essence split the baby. What about science says we as a society of empathetic, caring, individuals can't determine destroying the combination of living cells that will grow into a full formed human in nine months with no outside intervention is a bad thing, a thing we don't ever want to happen and put in place significant restrictions to allowing it to happen? It's an easy cop out to say, "you're only against abortion because of religion" How about a thoughtful humanist who values life in our society and has come to the conclusion that as a society we shouldn't destroy potential life and after a certain time it is absolutely destroying human life.

1st, you can say it's not about religion. but it's about religion. 2nd, all thoughtful humanists value life. all those thoughtful humanists consider a kid - who's having his CHIP program taking away - life. a very small number of them consider a single-cell organism of equal value.

ACE wrote:
you make the argument Christians make against atheists


no, i don't. there are plenty of christians who believe that the state - or a majority of citizens within the state - shouldn't impose its religion on everyone else. christians, people of other faiths, and people people of goodwill combine to form a cohort who believes there should be no imposition of one religion's view on everyone.

i agree with you that at some point a fetus should be imbued with legal and moral status. i agree that happens before the fetus is born. i think it happens after conception.

a humanist of goodwill and a christian of goodwill could agree on an imperfect, but workable, place somewhere in there. i'm the former. are you the latter?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Pulling the plug on someone taking a "human life" or no? I'm still trying to understand where the transformation occurs since you use sentience as your example.

the issue here is legal. civil. "transformation" occurs whenever you and i say it occurs. you, and i, and the rest of our friends, fellows and neighbors. you are dead certain you're right. i'm dead certain i'm right. neither of us get our way. we each either continue to advocate for our own way - the others be damned - or we find a solution. if you're not up to the task, that's fine. the rest of us will decide in your stead. this is the way societies work.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
Pulling the plug on someone taking a "human life" or no? I'm still trying to understand where the transformation occurs since you use sentience as your example.

the issue here is legal. civil. "transformation" occurs whenever you and i say it occurs. you, and i, and the rest of our friends, fellows and neighbors. you are dead certain you're right. i'm dead certain i'm right. neither of us get our way. we each either continue to advocate for our own way - the others be damned - or we find a solution. if you're not up to the task, that's fine. the rest of us will decide in your stead. this is the way societies work.

Why are you lashing out? You previously claimed this was science citing to a biology degree, and now it is legal?

You said a fertilized egg, zygote etc. is not human life. When does it become human life? Simple question since you seemingly speak with authority that it is not at conception.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
I am not religious. I believe that a zygote is a human life.

Religion has nothing to do with it whatsoever for me so your claim that it's always about religion is false.

my mistake then. it is about religion 93, 95, 98 percent of the time. what is false is that the folks for whom this is a religious issue try to blow smoke up everyone's skirt by contending this has nothing to do with their religion.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Yes, yes you did.


I don't like this piece of shit Buick?
Why?
Because its yellow?
But you like your yellow Corvette?
Are you saying that a Buick and a corvette are the same thing?
No. What I'm saying is what makes one better than the other, in your eyes, clearly has nothing to do with the color yellow.


If you think that abortions and contraceptives are different, then please use the differences in your argument. The potential of ending up as a human, later, is not a difference.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A fertilized egg will only turn into a human if you provide it certain nutrients.
An unfertilized egg will do the same, and they get flushed down the toilet on a monthly basis and no one holds a wake for them.

And if people really wanted to prevent abortions, they would actually enact laws and policies that make that happen in greater numbers.






Quote:

What about science says we as a society of empathetic, caring, individuals can't determine destroying the combination of living cells that will grow into a full formed human in nine months with no outside intervention is a bad thing, a thing we don't ever want to happen and put in place significant restrictions to allowing it to happen?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
If you think that abortions and contraceptives are different, then please use the differences in your argument. The potential of ending up as a human, later, is not a difference.

I quote myself from the previous page...

Quote:
I see contraception and abortion as two separate things

Contraception prevents an egg from being fertilized. If a couple does not want to have a baby they should refrain from vaginal intercourse or use contraception. This should be encouraged.

Abortion ends the life of an already fertilized egg. If a couple does not want to have a baby and they just couldn’t refrain from vaginal intercourse, didn’t use contraception or used it improperly, or in the very rare circumstance that properly used contraception didn’t work then they should have the right to an abortion if the pregnant lady in question wants to.

This should NOT be encouraged but should remain legal.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's fine. I don't have a problem with that argument. As I said, I was only pointing out that changing the outcomes of who could have been born is not really part of the equation.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
Pulling the plug on someone taking a "human life" or no? I'm still trying to understand where the transformation occurs since you use sentience as your example.


the issue here is legal. civil. "transformation" occurs whenever you and i say it occurs. you, and i, and the rest of our friends, fellows and neighbors. you are dead certain you're right. i'm dead certain i'm right. neither of us get our way. we each either continue to advocate for our own way - the others be damned - or we find a solution. if you're not up to the task, that's fine. the rest of us will decide in your stead. this is the way societies work.


Why are you lashing out? You previously claimed this was science citing to a biology degree, and now it is legal. You said a fertilized egg, zygote etc. is not human life. When does it become human life? Simple question since you seemingly speak with authority that it is not at conception.

I'm lashing out? where is the lashing out? look, one more (to you) because i just don't feel we're having a conversation any more fruitful than my typical conversation with you. here's my simple question for you. what happens to us when we die? i'm sure you've got a simple answer. i don't. i don't know the answer. there's a lot of things to which i don't know the answer. and i'm smart enough to know how dumb i am. when answers aren't so simple. the apostle paul exhorted the philippians to work out their salvation in fear and trembling. because it's not all so glib and certain. here's one more for you, from james: this is true religion, to come to the aid of widows and orphans in distress.

what i know for goddamsure is that we've got a lot of widows and orphans in distress. so, perhaps you could take a timeout in your advocacy for zygotes and tell me why you're good with your captain slashing CHIP funding. against the backdrop of the book of james. when i know that you... actually... care... about life (because i don't know when it starts, but i'm damned well confident it's started by the time the baby qualifies for the CHIP program) then maybe we might hope to find some common ground.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
That's fine. I don't have a problem with that argument. As I said, I was only pointing out that changing the outcomes of who could have been born is not really part of the equation.


Well to put it in context I was replying to someone who said, “as someone who has had an abortion I don’t consider it a life...”

I figured since the door was opened to personal anecdotes I’d share some of my own which include the termination of s pregnancy for which I was half responsible and the attempted but failed termination of what is now my son.

And I pointed out how differently those things turned out. One fertilized egg survived an abortion and became what is now a teenager and the other fertilized egg that did not survive an abortion and became what is now source of emotional pain for the woman who had the abortion.

Like I’ve been saying here, this is a messy subject.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Last edited by: Duffy: May 16, 19 12:33
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:

And I pointed out how differently those things turned out. One fertilized egg survived an abortion and became what is now a teenager and the other fertilized egg that did not survive an abortion and became what is now source of emotional pain for the woman who had the abortion.

There shouldnt be any emotional pain, see, it was just a collection of cells. Clearly she’s delusional.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
Duffy wrote:

And I pointed out how differently those things turned out. One fertilized egg survived an abortion and became what is now a teenager and the other fertilized egg that did not survive an abortion and became what is now source of emotional pain for the woman who had the abortion.

There shouldnt be any emotional pain, see, it was just a collection of cells. Clearly she’s delusional.

Well some people need to believe that it’s a “clump of cells” in order to live with their decision.

I don’t. I can accept that’s it the ending of a life and despite that, should remain legal.

But I’m a guy that isn’t all that concerned with making things comfortable.

Sometimes you just have to make shitty, horrible, regrettable choices.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
Duffy wrote:


And I pointed out how differently those things turned out. One fertilized egg survived an abortion and became what is now a teenager and the other fertilized egg that did not survive an abortion and became what is now source of emotional pain for the woman who had the abortion.


There shouldnt be any emotional pain, see, it was just a collection of cells. Clearly she’s delusional.

when you get done with your happy time circle jerk, let the rest of us know. because, there's no right way to think about an abortion. each girl or woman has the right to feel profoundly sad, to feel the weight of the decision, or to invest the procedure with fewer moral or spiritual overtones.

there are assholes on both sides of this argument. and only an asshole thinks that the default view from the pro-choice side is to treat abortion with a cavalier attitude.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We had a lump of cells inserted into my wife through IVF and it failed to continue developing.

We also had a lump of cells announce itself through a pregnancy test and then for whatever reason terminated.

Both times it sucked. A lot.

I don't know why though. Just a lump of cells.

I must have mental issues I guess.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:

Well some people need to believe that it’s a “clump of cells” in order to live with their decision.

I don’t. I can accept that’s it the ending of a life and despite that, should remain legal.

But I’m a guy that isn’t all that concerned with making things comfortable.

Sometimes you just have to make shitty, horrible, regrettable choices.

I have no problem living with my decision, nor did I make a shitty, horrible, regrettable choice. I'm totally fine with my choice. Imperative word = CHOICE.

Pretty funny that 99% of the people commenting on this thread is a bunch of people with penises.

From a friend of a friend: White Alabama men are fighting for the rights of a bunch of cells inside a woman’s uterus, but if those cells turn out to be gay, lesbian, bi, trans, a woman, black, brown, Muslim...suddenly they won’t fight for them, they will literally fight against them.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
BarryP wrote:

If you think that abortions and contraceptives are different, then please use the differences in your argument. The potential of ending up as a human, later, is not a difference.


I quote myself from the previous page...

Quote:
I see contraception and abortion as two separate things

Contraception prevents an egg from being fertilized. If a couple does not want to have a baby they should refrain from vaginal intercourse or use contraception. This should be encouraged.

Abortion ends the life of an already fertilized egg. If a couple does not want to have a baby and they just couldn’t refrain from vaginal intercourse, didn’t use contraception or used it improperly, or in the very rare circumstance that properly used contraception didn’t work then they should have the right to an abortion if the pregnant lady in question wants to.

This should NOT be encouraged but should remain legal.

I guess you're against IUDs, then. Because they are a form of contraception that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. They also have a substance that kills sperm, but fertilization may occur.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Garry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You think the court was telling them they had to have abortions?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Well some people need to believe that it’s a “clump of cells” in order to live with their decision.

I don’t. I can accept that’s it the ending of a life and despite that, should remain legal.

But I’m a guy that isn’t all that concerned with making things comfortable.

Sometimes you just have to make shitty, horrible, regrettable choices.

I have no problem living with my decision, nor did I make a shitty, horrible, regrettable choice. I'm totally fine with my choice. Imperative word = CHOICE.

Pretty funny that 99% of the people commenting on this thread is a bunch of people with penises.

From a friend of a friend: White Alabama men are fighting for the rights of a bunch of cells inside a woman’s uterus, but if those cells turn out to be gay, lesbian, bi, trans, a woman, black, brown, Muslim...suddenly they won’t fight for them, they will literally fight against them.

I don’t have a problem with your decision either.

I do however think that choosing between being a teenage mother or having an abortion is a shitty choice. Neither option is good.

As for a bunch of people with penises...how the hell do you think that clump of cells got there?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [bt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bt wrote:
Duffy wrote:
BarryP wrote:

If you think that abortions and contraceptives are different, then please use the differences in your argument. The potential of ending up as a human, later, is not a difference.


I quote myself from the previous page...

Quote:
I see contraception and abortion as two separate things

Contraception prevents an egg from being fertilized. If a couple does not want to have a baby they should refrain from vaginal intercourse or use contraception. This should be encouraged.

Abortion ends the life of an already fertilized egg. If a couple does not want to have a baby and they just couldn’t refrain from vaginal intercourse, didn’t use contraception or used it improperly, or in the very rare circumstance that properly used contraception didn’t work then they should have the right to an abortion if the pregnant lady in question wants to.

This should NOT be encouraged but should remain legal.

I guess you're against IUDs, then. Because they are a form of contraception that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. They also have a substance that kills sperm, but fertilization may occur.

Can you please point out to me what it is in any of the posts I’ve made on this site which made you come to the conclusion that I would be against IUD’s?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
We had a lump of cells inserted into my wife through IVF and it failed to continue developing.

We also had a lump of cells announce itself through a pregnancy test and then for whatever reason terminated.

Both times it sucked. A lot.

I don't know why though. Just a lump of cells.

I must have mental issues I guess.


I know this has been mentioned before and I’m truly sorry that you had to go through these setbacks. Stuff like can be emotionally difficult to say the least. I’m really happy for you that you were ultimately successful in your quest to have the lump of cells you worked so hard for.

I wish the you and your wife the best in raising your lumps that made it all the way to non-lumpdum. I really mean that.

My wife and also did fertility treatments in an attempt have some lumps made but ultimately gave up and adopted a clump of cells from Russia.

So far so good.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Last edited by: Duffy: May 16, 19 13:32
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
These idiots...

Quote:
State senators voted 25-6 for the bill that had overwhelmingly cleared the House of Representatives earlier this month. The legislation now goes to Gov. Kay Ivey, who will decide whether to sign the bill into law.
Ivey has not publicly said whether she will sign the bill if it's approved by lawmakers.
"The governor intends to withhold comment until it makes its way to her desk for signature," deputy press secretary Lori Jhons wrote in an email prior to Tuesday night's vote.


Hopefully the governor realizes this will only create a huge backlash and make it damn near impossible for any republican president to nominate RBG’s (RIP) replacement.

Oh, and that whole banning of abortions is fucking stupid too..

Fucking religion...

The idiocy and mental gymnastics of this legislation is incredible. They seriously think the SCOTUS is going to consider this? Or maybe they don't and being safe in such a ruby red state leads you to do crazy things like this and nominate Roy Moore. I swear, Alabama is stupid. But Georgia is on the same track and several other red states are on this track including mine. I think I've argued with more republican friends over this in the last few days than I have with democrats since November.

This is a colossal waste of political capital that isn't going to go anywhere. There won't be a sudden change in the judiciary. The courts in recent year basically validated the ability for anybody to have reasonable access to an abortion and barred fairly mild obstacles when compared to this, I bet it doesn't get past appellate court. Lower courts will stay it, appellate courts won't even hear arguments, and neither with the SCOTUS. So all this will have done given the left a very valid talking point about how nutty the Republican party is.

I swear to fucking god, it's like everybody is doubling down on being crazy. Republicans elect trump, we get our schadenfreude, but its run its course. Now all democrats have to do is play it safe and do no harm, but they too are trying to out crazy each other to win over a crazy base. So the republicans stand a good chance of holding the senate, maybe a couple house seats back (no majority), and the white house is competitive. Then this. I've had three fairly reasonable elected officials I consult with say they cringe whenever this topic comes up. Because it's a loser. It's a no win situation that lingers.

All that can be done has basically been done legislatively to control and limit abortion. Most state laws already align with limits on abortion beyond 22 months. But the rabid base now wants absolute bans. Like immigration, we can reduce it by attacking the problem. In the case of illegal immigration, go after employers illegally hiring. For abortion we can educate youth with realistic sex education and access to birth control. But these same fucking nutter don't want that. They don't want kids fucking period and think sex ed entices kids, and bc takes away responsibility, so only abstinence is acceptable. Sorry, but this has been a problem forever, and it isn't working. How about we rationally address the risk?

But wait, there's more. These same a-holes are the ones who don't want tax money going to welfare. Single mothers are the main recipients of welfare. Nor are these jack wagons lining up to adopt white trash, black or brown babies. So what can you do if you are a republican not running in a ruby red district? Shrug I guess.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Ozymandias] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My favorite aspect of the law is that it remains perfectly legal to use abortifactients "up to the point a woman learns she's pregnant." Then it becomes illegal.

Soooooooo...there's that.

"I'm just a man, no more or no less; bad as the worst, good as the best" - W
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Well some people need to believe that it’s a “clump of cells” in order to live with their decision.

I don’t. I can accept that’s it the ending of a life and despite that, should remain legal.

But I’m a guy that isn’t all that concerned with making things comfortable.

Sometimes you just have to make shitty, horrible, regrettable choices.

I have no problem living with my decision, nor did I make a shitty, horrible, regrettable choice. I'm totally fine with my choice. Imperative word = CHOICE.

Pretty funny that 99% of the people commenting on this thread is a bunch of people with penises.

From a friend of a friend: White Alabama men are fighting for the rights of a bunch of cells inside a woman’s uterus, but if those cells turn out to be gay, lesbian, bi, trans, a woman, black, brown, Muslim...suddenly they won’t fight for them, they will literally fight against them.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
My favorite aspect of the law is that it remains perfectly legal to use abortifactients "up to the point a woman learns she's pregnant." Then it becomes illegal.

Soooooooo...there's that.


Hard to overstate the way that RU-486 has changed the imperative to block abortion at 6 weeks. Surgical abortions are plummeting and early abortions are rising (overall, abortion rates have been dropping for decades). In many countries, overall abortion rates are very low, and 95% of abortions are medical. This largely satisfies the vast majority of the populace that is pro-choice, but opposes late-term abortion. Here are some articles about the situation in Canada:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/...e-activism-in-canada
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/...as-stopped-offering/
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 16, 19 15:53
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Ozymandias] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Emily Ratajkowski poses naked to decry '25 old white men' who voted to ban abortion in Alabama...



- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks. I mostly bring it up because I don’t understand how anyone who has lost a child that they wanted and gone through that grief can then say “it’s just a lump of cells”.

I can’t rectify those two. Maybe others can but it sounds like mental gymnastics to me.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
Thanks. I mostly bring it up because I don’t understand how anyone who has lost a child that they wanted and gone through that grief can then say “it’s just a lump of cells”.

I can’t rectify those two. Maybe others can but it sounds like mental gymnastics to me.

The bolded part is a major difference. Very sorry you went through it. My mom and dad went through it 5 times with one stillbirth before they adopted me and my brother.

Did your wife have a D&C after miscarriage? Under the proposed Georgia law this wouldn't be allowed, right?

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Fair enough.

I got a girl pregnant in our teens. She aborted.

I consider it as ending a life. So does she.

My sister has had two abortions. She sees them as the ending of a life.

If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.

My son’s birth mother attempted to abort him and failed.

He starts high school this fall and is one of the few great joys in my life.


Good for you. I'm adopted. I may not exist (in this form) if things were different in the late 1950s. I can separate the two.


And I can acknowledge that abortion ends a life and also should remain legal.

Then why do you insist on getting in semantic arguments with people who essentially agree w/ you?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:

Have I ever written anything on this forum ever in the history of Duffy posts that would suggest that I’m opposed to the use of contraceptives?

The insight into Barry’s psyche is that HE is equating contraception with abortion, just like the religious right he opposes.

I see contraception and abortion as two separate things.


Sigh, Barry wasn't saying that you were opposed to contraceptives, and he was merely pointing out that some people are (an indisputable fact). The thread had meandered from fetal/women's rights and "what is life" to a rumination on the loss of potential humans that may occur due to abortion. Barry merely pointed out that a reliance on that also logically leads to opposition to contraception (see the Catholic Church). He doesn't agree with that viewpoint, and also never said that you did. That argument came up, and he commented on the weakness of that particular approach. You have made your opinion on this abundantly clear. Sometimes the thread tangents aren't about all about you....


It’s very strange that i can repeatedly exclaim in no uncertain terms that I’m pro choice and want abortion to remain legal, beyond the point during pregnancy that most pro choice people tap out, and the only people on this forum who are pissed off at me are the pro choice liberals.

Ummm.... Troubleshooting 101 would suggest that the one thing in common to all these problem observation is you. No?

Just a thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
oldandslow wrote:
Duffy wrote:
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.



Also wanted to add that there are a lot of people who would exist otherwise if contraception was banned, or if people weren't such prudes about sex before marriage.

Hell, just changing interracial marriage laws leads to a whole lot of people who would have existed who never did, and a whole other group of people alive today who would never have existed.

Life is funny like that.


Thanks for sharing. This post gives great insight into your psyche.


What??? Barry points out that contraception changes whether folks would be around or not. There are plenty of folks who have exactly that viewpoint and specifically lump all contraception into the abortion debate and oppose it for that reason. That's just a fact, which he is pointing out. Do you have a problem with it? Your post says nothing about BarryP or anyone (it is a petty attack with no other content), but "gives great insight into your psyche." Perhaps BarryP just triggers you....


Have I ever written anything on this forum ever in the history of Duffy posts that would suggest that I’m opposed to the use of contraceptives?

The insight into Barry’s psyche is that HE is equating contraception with abortion, just like the religious right he opposes.

I see contraception and abortion as two separate things.

Contraception prevents an egg from being fertilized. If a couple does not want to have a baby they should refrain from vaginal intercourse or use contraception. This should be encouraged.

Abortion ends the life of an already fertilized egg. If a couple does not want to have a baby and they just couldn’t refrain from vaginal intercourse, didn’t use contraception or used it improperly, or in the very rare circumstance that properly used contraception didn’t work then they should have the right to an abortion if the pregnant lady in question wants to.

This should NOT be encouraged but should remain legal.

Eh, that's only true for some methods. Others prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, in which case they've cause the death of a 'whatever' that would otherwise presumably go on to become a viable person at some point. So depending on how you wish to define it, some forms of contraception work by essentially inducing a super-early abortion.

Have fun w/ that....
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:


Well some people need to believe that it’s a “clump of cells” in order to live with their decision.

I don’t. I can accept that’s it the ending of a life and despite that, should remain legal.

But I’m a guy that isn’t all that concerned with making things comfortable.

Sometimes you just have to make shitty, horrible, regrettable choices.


I have no problem living with my decision, nor did I make a shitty, horrible, regrettable choice. I'm totally fine with my choice. Imperative word = CHOICE.

Pretty funny that 99% of the people commenting on this thread is a bunch of people with penises.

From a friend of a friend: White Alabama men are fighting for the rights of a bunch of cells inside a woman’s uterus, but if those cells turn out to be gay, lesbian, bi, trans, a woman, black, brown, Muslim...suddenly they won’t fight for them, they will literally fight against them.

Not exactly the same point, but kinda close...

Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
BLeP wrote:
Thanks. I mostly bring it up because I don’t understand how anyone who has lost a child that they wanted and gone through that grief can then say “it’s just a lump of cells”.

I can’t rectify those two. Maybe others can but it sounds like mental gymnastics to me.

The bolded part is a major difference. Very sorry you went through it. My mom and dad went through it 5 times with one stillbirth before they adopted me and my brother.

Did your wife have a D&C after miscarriage? Under the proposed Georgia law this wouldn't be allowed, right?

So intent changes it’s biology? If you want it it’s a baby, if you don’t it’s a clump of cells?

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Have you ever looked into adoption? I have. And believe me, I feel for those kids but 99% of them have serious issues.

Had we not already had a child we might have considered it more seriously. But we didn’t think that bringing a messed up kid into our house was a good idea.

I think that that a lot of people in this thread are painting groups of people with very broad brushes.

I am certain that there are many pro lifers who have adopted.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OneGoodLeg wrote:
Duffy wrote:
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Fair enough.

I got a girl pregnant in our teens. She aborted.

I consider it as ending a life. So does she.

My sister has had two abortions. She sees them as the ending of a life.

If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.

My son’s birth mother attempted to abort him and failed.

He starts high school this fall and is one of the few great joys in my life.


Good for you. I'm adopted. I may not exist (in this form) if things were different in the late 1950s. I can separate the two.


And I can acknowledge that abortion ends a life and also should remain legal.

Then why do you insist on getting in semantic arguments with people who essentially agree w/ you?

I’m not arguing, I’m asking for people’s thoughts. I have mine I want to hear what others think.

There’s no right or wrong answer ( in my mind).

Have you noticed that I haven’t called anyone wrong?

When I “challenge” people’s ideas on this it’s because I want to understand them better.

It looks this makes some people unnecessarily defensive.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ok.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OneGoodLeg wrote:
Not exactly the same point, but kinda close...


Have you ever tried to adopt through the foster care system?

We have. Of all the horrible shit that has happened in our l lives this was far and away the worst experience either of us have ever had. The idea of emotionally recovering form what we went through is utterly absurd.

This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn’t have the slightest clue.

There are millions of people waiting to adopt right now.

The lack of kids being adopted through the foster system has nothing to do whatsoever with a lack of demand for adoption.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
what i know for goddamsure is that we've got a lot of widows and orphans in distress. so, perhaps you could take a timeout in your advocacy for zygotes and tell me why you're good with your captain slashing CHIP funding. against the backdrop of the book of james. when i know that you... actually... care... about life (because i don't know when it starts, but i'm damned well confident it's started by the time the baby qualifies for the CHIP program) then maybe we might hope to find some common ground.

So, in order to qualify to be pro-life, one needs to support CHIP?

I attend a small church. Despite it's small size (<100 regular attenders), we have a prison ministry, a quasi-foster care ministry (it's not really foster care; it's more just short-term helping families' children, which could mean keeping 2 brothers/sisters while mom takes sister to the doctor or for a month if mom just can't get it right), and we provide significant financial and other care to the local Crisis Pregnancy Center. While I don't think we've ever had a discussion about CHIP; I think that's a stretch to infer that this lack of CHIP support somehow poisons the other ministry work or disqualifies our pro-life stance.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
Slowman wrote:
windywave wrote:
Pulling the plug on someone taking a "human life" or no? I'm still trying to understand where the transformation occurs since you use sentience as your example.


the issue here is legal. civil. "transformation" occurs whenever you and i say it occurs. you, and i, and the rest of our friends, fellows and neighbors. you are dead certain you're right. i'm dead certain i'm right. neither of us get our way. we each either continue to advocate for our own way - the others be damned - or we find a solution. if you're not up to the task, that's fine. the rest of us will decide in your stead. this is the way societies work.


Why are you lashing out? You previously claimed this was science citing to a biology degree, and now it is legal. You said a fertilized egg, zygote etc. is not human life. When does it become human life? Simple question since you seemingly speak with authority that it is not at conception.

I'm lashing out? where is the lashing out? look, one more (to you) because i just don't feel we're having a conversation any more fruitful than my typical conversation with you. here's my simple question for you. what happens to us when we die? i'm sure you've got a simple answer. i don't. i don't know the answer. there's a lot of things to which i don't know the answer. and i'm smart enough to know how dumb i am. when answers aren't so simple. the apostle paul exhorted the philippians to work out their salvation in fear and trembling. because it's not all so glib and certain. here's one more for you, from james: this is true religion, to come to the aid of widows and orphans in distress.

what i know for goddamsure is that we've got a lot of widows and orphans in distress. so, perhaps you could take a timeout in your advocacy for zygotes and tell me why you're good with your captain slashing CHIP funding. against the backdrop of the book of james. when i know that you... actually... care... about life (because i don't know when it starts, but i'm damned well confident it's started by the time the baby qualifies for the CHIP program) then maybe we might hope to find some common ground.

Did you even bother reading what I wrote or do you just start typing blindly? I friggin agree with you (see page 4) except for the fact i think it is terminating life and you think life starts at some amorphous point.

You answer you don't know. That's what I'm taking as your final answer unless you state otherwise, although I think that's a cop out.

As to the rest of this post I'm just assuming you meant it for someone else.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TriFloyd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriFloyd wrote:
Slowman wrote:
what i know for goddamsure is that we've got a lot of widows and orphans in distress. so, perhaps you could take a timeout in your advocacy for zygotes and tell me why you're good with your captain slashing CHIP funding. against the backdrop of the book of james. when i know that you... actually... care... about life (because i don't know when it starts, but i'm damned well confident it's started by the time the baby qualifies for the CHIP program) then maybe we might hope to find some common ground.


So, in order to qualify to be pro-life, one needs to support CHIP?

It's worse than that. Apparently the issue is that Dan doesn't feel someone has sufficiently criticized Pres. Trump's lack of support for CHIP.

This is where the discussion in the LR always takes a turn straight into the shitter. You're not allowed to have a position on issue X, unless you've outspokenly crapped on Pres Trump for issue Z. It's getting pretty old.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I don't know why though. Just a lump of cells.

I must have mental issues I guess.


You have an emotional attachment to it for the same reason most people do. You've evolved to do so. People who have an emotional attachment to a pregnancy are more likely to spread their genes. People who don't have an emotional attachment do not.

I get it. As cavalier as I may sound, my wife (girlfriend at the time) misread a pregnancy test about 15 years ago. I was overwhelmed with emotion for about a day until we realized that we read the test wrong. Its part of being human.

But the fact that a number of people FEEL certain emotions with regard to a pregnancy doesn't change what a zygote actually is. It is a small microscopic collection of cells that isn't much different than a mole on your skin. It doesn't think. It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't have a brain, or any organs for that matter. It doesn't have a "soul."

Feeling that there's something magical going on is natural, but it doesn't change what it actually is.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You're not allowed to have a position on issue X, unless you've outspokenly crapped on Pres Trump for issue Z. It's getting pretty old.


You're allowed to do whatever you want, and we're allowed to tell you that your words don't match your actions.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
TriFloyd wrote:
Slowman wrote:
what i know for goddamsure is that we've got a lot of widows and orphans in distress. so, perhaps you could take a timeout in your advocacy for zygotes and tell me why you're good with your captain slashing CHIP funding. against the backdrop of the book of james. when i know that you... actually... care... about life (because i don't know when it starts, but i'm damned well confident it's started by the time the baby qualifies for the CHIP program) then maybe we might hope to find some common ground.


So, in order to qualify to be pro-life, one needs to support CHIP?


It's worse than that. Apparently the issue is that Dan doesn't feel someone has sufficiently criticized Pres. Trump's lack of support for CHIP.

This is where the discussion in the LR always takes a turn straight into the shitter. You're not allowed to have a position on issue X, unless you've outspokenly crapped on Pres Trump for issue Z. It's getting pretty old.

you gents can hold whatever position you want. i just disagree with you (specifically you), both on the law (no, a group of people can't enact an unconstitutional statute); and on the ethics (no, it's bad form force your religious tenets on those who don't ascribe to your religion).

if you prefer a separate thread on the christian right's lack of zeal for living children, that's a fair point.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
You're not allowed to have a position on issue X, unless you've outspokenly crapped on Pres Trump for issue Z. It's getting pretty old.



You're allowed to do whatever you want, and we're allowed to tell you that your words don't match your actions.

Yes Barry, we all already know you're allowed to be full of shit.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
you gents can hold whatever position you want. i just disagree with you (specifically you), both on the law (no, a group of people can't enact an unconstitutional statute); and on the ethics (no, it's bad form force your religious tenets on those who don't ascribe to your religion).

Funny how you're so determined to disagree with positions I didn't take. As usual, we reach a point in a discussion in which your personal need to feel self-righteous outweighs your willingness to engage honestly.

First, people "can" enact unconstitutional statutes, although I never made that argument previously. They shouldn't do so, and I have confidence that the system of government we have in place will correct such action through the checks granted by the judiciary. However, what's constitutional and what's not isn't always perfectly clear, which is partly why we have a large judiciary to help rule on those conflicts.

Second, I never endorsed "forcing" religious beliefs on the non-religious. I said that it is perfectly fine to allow your religious beliefs to inform your choices in politicians and your positions on the issues. If you have a problem with that, then you simply don't understand how our system is supposed to work.

Quote:
if you prefer a separate thread on the christian right's lack of zeal for living children, that's a fair point.

I think I would simply prefer to be able to have a discussion about abortion, or really any topic, without someone feeling the need to frame subject X in terms of "why don't you complain about how Trump does Y?"

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Question for those who believe that meaningful life starts at fertilization and no matter what, the unborn child takes precedence over the mother's rights... (so, not necessarily to the person who I replied to, you were just at the top of the page)

What about an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy? Since it seems that some people here have determined that their position is that the zygote must never be destroyed, what if the pregnancy is occurring outside of the uterus, where continuation of the pregnancy can lead to death (of the pregnant woman and the zygote/embryo)? Are you ok with killing it then? And if so, then why not in the case of a fatal birth defect, where an earlier abortion would be safer for the mother, rather than having to go to delivery of a stillborn infant (or have the infant die in utero, which can cause sepsis, among other things)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [bt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's not the best example. A tubal pregnancy is doomed anyway so removing it is the only real option.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nope. In Ohio, you can just move the fetus to the uterus. Except for science and all that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/...ancies-can-be-moved/

===============
Amen, bitches!
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
OneGoodLeg wrote:
Not exactly the same point, but kinda close...



Have you ever tried to adopt through the foster care system?

We have. Of all the horrible shit that has happened in our l lives this was far and away the worst experience either of us have ever had. The idea of emotionally recovering form what we went through is utterly absurd.

This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn’t have the slightest clue.

There are millions of people waiting to adopt right now.

The lack of kids being adopted through the foster system has nothing to do whatsoever with a lack of demand for adoption.

That MEME is again a typical BS stereotype talking point of the pro-abortion crowd. My sister is ardently pro-life and has adopted 2 kids from the foster care system and fostered 4 others, along with her own kids.

Sorry about your experience with the foster care system. The children she adopted were given up immediately after birth by their crack head parents so she has had them since they were born. Those kids won the lottery.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So is an anencephalic fetus. Which may not be detected until 11 weeks or later.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, it's possible in Ohio. Just not anywhere else.

Science works differently in Ohio.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [bt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Meh. Pro choice anyway so I got nothing for you.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am not sure why legislation is needed in the first place.

Why not use thoughts and prayers like the way gun control works?

Apparently it is very effective!

===============
Amen, bitches!
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Both sides of the abortion issue are 'modern', and neither side is supported by religion. A women's right to choose is certainly not supported by Judeo / Christion scripture - and neither is the pro-life stance. The God of the Bible is an overt baby and child killer, and the Bible itself is quite ambivalent re the unborn. The Bible is all over the map re 'killing' in general.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
you gents can hold whatever position you want. i just disagree with you (specifically you), both on the law (no, a group of people can't enact an unconstitutional statute); and on the ethics (no, it's bad form force your religious tenets on those who don't ascribe to your religion).


Funny how you're so determined to disagree with positions I didn't take. As usual, we reach a point in a discussion in which your personal need to feel self-righteous outweighs your willingness to engage honestly.

First, people "can" enact unconstitutional statutes, although I never made that argument previously. They shouldn't do so, and I have confidence that the system of government we have in place will correct such action through the checks granted by the judiciary. However, what's constitutional and what's not isn't always perfectly clear, which is partly why we have a large judiciary to help rule on those conflicts.

Second, I never endorsed "forcing" religious beliefs on the non-religious. I said that it is perfectly fine to allow your religious beliefs to inform your choices in politicians and your positions on the issues. If you have a problem with that, then you simply don't understand how our system is supposed to work.


i've got too much respect for you to get into a spat of who's really the self-righteous one here, and who inevitably takes threads sideways. let's just remember what you wrote:

slowguy wrote:
it's not fundamentally wrong for any group of people with shared believes to pursue normal democratic processes to implement those beliefs. Religious groups aren't forcing their religious beliefs on the population. They are lobbying their governments to enact laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, just like every other interest group does.


those words sound so benign. but if a religious group "implement(s) those beliefs" thru enacting laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, we are all forced to adhere to those beliefs. religion is not like "every other interest group." as i wrote - and you just are not acknowledging it - the establishment and free exercise clauses protect our population from religion. this is a named peril. just as guns are not like shovels, religion is not like "other interests."

slowguy wrote:
It's no more unconstitutional for religious people to "inflict" their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way than it is for someone who believes in a certain immigration policy or a certain health care policy to "inflict" their ideas on the country using the same mechanisms.


religion is different from other interests. 1A doesn't prohibit a law "respecting a dietary requirement," or "respecting a hair style," rather, " respecting an establishment of religion."

religious folk can't hide behind this thru a degree of separation (electing reps who'll enact the law). you can't parse between individuals lobbying for this versus their state legislators doing it. if a religious group thrusts its beliefs into law via direct election (initiative of referendum), it's still going to be struck down as unconstitutional. regardless of how it's done, no such law can stand.

torcaso v watkins (1961): maryland had a law requiring politicians to state their belief in god in order to be on a ballot. struck down unamimously. the state - or the people in the state - cannot impose their religion on everyone.

engel v vitate (1962): the daily reading of a prayer in school: unconstitutional.

abington township v schempp, and murray v curlett (1963): nope, can't require students on public schools to participate in a curriculum requiring daily bible reading.

and plenty more. so when you maintain it is legal "for religious people to 'inflict' their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way," no.

the court adopted, in many cases subsequent to lemon v kurtzman, a "3-prong test" for such cases, one being whether "govt and religion are excessively entangled." we won't ever see this argued in abortion, because those defending the right to abortion rely on 14A, and the right to privacy doctrine flowing from that. however i believe that there's a 1A violation here as well.

i cannot force you to have an abortion if that violates your 1A rights. keep your baby. but you cannot force me to keep my baby, if that effort to control my behavior flows from your religious beliefs. you wrote that "The Constitution doesn't prevent citizens from imposing their beliefs. It prevents the government from imposing on the rights of the citizens. " the way citizens impose their beliefs is to vote in their own, who enact laws that impose on the rights of the citizens. you won't go to jail if you vote to impose your religion on me. but you're engaged in a fruitless act, because you can't impose your religious view on me, not by direct election, and not thru your elected representative.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: May 17, 19 8:11
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I am not sure why legislation is needed in the first place.

I know “why” it’s “needed”. I just disagree with it.

Quote:
Why not use thoughts and prayers like the way gun control works?

I agree 100%. We (not me because I don’t pray, nor do I think much) should offer thoughts and prayers to the “clumps of cells” and the “mother” in these cases, “just like gun control”.

Hey look! We agree on something! We both agree that there should be few or no laws restricting abortions or guns.

High five!

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was going to say that you can't win a debate by simply repeatedly mocking something, but then realized who our President is. So, good for you. Good for Blep.

People get pregnant.
They cry.
That trumps facts, science, reality, etc.
Especially if you mock it.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
I was going to say that you can't win a debate by simply repeatedly mocking something, but then realized who our President is. So, good for you. Good for Blep.

People get pregnant.
They cry.
That trumps facts, science, reality, etc.
Especially if you mock it.

I’m not really sure why you’re saying this to me. I’m ok with infanticide being legal in some cases.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It was your mocking of the “clump of cells”

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
It was your mocking of the “clump of cells”

Oh, sorry. I won’t joke around with BLeP anymore.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The beautiful thing about the abortion debate is that you get to be passive aggressive with both sides. Its like the best of both worlds for you.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ACE wrote:
Duffy wrote:
OneGoodLeg wrote:
Not exactly the same point, but kinda close...



Have you ever tried to adopt through the foster care system?

We have. Of all the horrible shit that has happened in our l lives this was far and away the worst experience either of us have ever had. The idea of emotionally recovering form what we went through is utterly absurd.

This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn’t have the slightest clue.

There are millions of people waiting to adopt right now.

The lack of kids being adopted through the foster system has nothing to do whatsoever with a lack of demand for adoption.


That MEME is again a typical BS stereotype talking point of the pro-abortion crowd. My sister is ardently pro-life and has adopted 2 kids from the foster care system and fostered 4 others, along with her own kids.

Sorry about your experience with the foster care system. The children she adopted were given up immediately after birth by their crack head parents so she has had them since they were born. Those kids won the lottery.

Stop being fucking stupid.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
The beautiful thing about the abortion debate is that you get to be passive aggressive with both sides. Its like the best of both worlds for you.

I think you’re misinterpreting my posts here. All I’m trying to do is see where people stand and how they arrive at that position.

I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.

I’m the cases where I’m poking people a bit the purpose isn’t passive aggression it’s to get a better understanding of that persons position and how they come to think how they think.

What’s really good about this subject for me is that I get to make jokes about abortion.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.

yeah. you were. your "clumps of cells" jokes were sneering, particular toward someone who did have this procedure. this is your typical schtick. act boorishly toward women, say your wife read what you wrote and agrees with you, so you're absolved from how you treat others.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.

yeah. you were. your "clumps of cells" jokes were sneering, particular toward someone who did have this procedure. this is your typical schtick. act boorishly toward women, say your wife read what you wrote and agrees with you, so you're absolved from how you treat others.

I’m actually intrigued with the idea that if a pregnancy is wanted then that clump of cells is considered a baby and if it isn’t wanted it’s just a clump of cells. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, it’s just an interesting thought problem.

As far the jokes go, I was joking with BLeP.

Also, I don’t believe that asking tough questions of someone who happens to be a woman is any more or less “boorish” then asking tough questions to a man.

I live under the assumption that women can handle themselves just fine.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.


yeah. you were. your "clumps of cells" jokes were sneering, particular toward someone who did have this procedure. this is your typical schtick. act boorishly toward women, say your wife read what you wrote and agrees with you, so you're absolved from how you treat others.


I’m actually intrigued with the idea that if a pregnancy is wanted then that clump of cells is considered a baby and if it isn’t wanted it’s just a clump of cells. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, it’s just an interesting thought problem.

As far the jokes go, I was joking with BLeP.

Also, I don’t believe that asking tough questions of someone who happens to be a woman is any more or less “boorish” then asking tough questions to a man.

I live under the assumption that women can handle themselves just fine.

Either way it's a clump of cells. A woman stating "I'm going to have a baby" is not the same as "this clump of cells is a baby."

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheRef65 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.


yeah. you were. your "clumps of cells" jokes were sneering, particular toward someone who did have this procedure. this is your typical schtick. act boorishly toward women, say your wife read what you wrote and agrees with you, so you're absolved from how you treat others.


I’m actually intrigued with the idea that if a pregnancy is wanted then that clump of cells is considered a baby and if it isn’t wanted it’s just a clump of cells. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, it’s just an interesting thought problem.

As far the jokes go, I was joking with BLeP.

Also, I don’t believe that asking tough questions of someone who happens to be a woman is any more or less “boorish” then asking tough questions to a man.

I live under the assumption that women can handle themselves just fine.

Either way it's a clump of cells. A woman stating "I'm going to have a baby" is not the same as "this clump of cells is a baby."

Well the reason this came up for me was ironclm post to BLeP’s comment about the miscarriage of “a clump of cells” and how bad it felt, the implication that it was akin to losing a baby.

Ironclm’s response focused on the issue of want, which to me implied that if this clump of cells is “wanted” then it is a life, a human life.

If it’s not wanted it’s just a clump of cells.

I asked ironclm to clarify (or as slowman says, I “acted boorishly”) but ironclm has not yes responded.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Either way it's a clump of cells. A woman stating "I'm going to have a baby" is not the same as "this clump of cells is a baby."

True. And to add on:

If they THINK its a baby, it doesn't make it a baby.
If they have a strong emotional attachment to it, that doesn't change what it is.

And I also want to add, just because it is clump of cells, it doesn't trivialize a person's feelings about their pregnancy. When I say, "Its a clump pf cells," I'm stating an objective fact. I'm not saying that someone is stupid for being distraught about a lost pregnancy.

And MOST importantly, we can't shift the dialogue. Just because someone is sad about losing THEIR zygote or fetus, doesn't mean that it justifies legislating someone else's zygote or fetus because of feelings you had about your own pregnancy.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.


yeah. you were. your "clumps of cells" jokes were sneering, particular toward someone who did have this procedure. this is your typical schtick. act boorishly toward women, say your wife read what you wrote and agrees with you, so you're absolved from how you treat others.


I’m actually intrigued with the idea that if a pregnancy is wanted then that clump of cells is considered a baby and if it isn’t wanted it’s just a clump of cells. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, it’s just an interesting thought problem.

As far the jokes go, I was joking with BLeP.

Also, I don’t believe that asking tough questions of someone who happens to be a woman is any more or less “boorish” then asking tough questions to a man.

I live under the assumption that women can handle themselves just fine.

what i might recommend is that if you're going to joke with BLeP at someone else's expense, you do it via PM, and not in front of the person at who's expense the joke is made.

no problem asking tough questions. the problem is when it's not asking, but sneering. also, it's a little different when you aren't the affected cohort. it's theoretical for you. it's academic. if you're an affected party, it's not academic. and no, you're not "affected" in any way close to the way a woman is affected. so your "tough" questions should be asked with the acknowledgement that you're mostly a spectator in this.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
Either way it's a clump of cells. A woman stating "I'm going to have a baby" is not the same as "this clump of cells is a baby."

True. And to add on:

If they THINK its a baby, it doesn't make it a baby.
If they have a strong emotional attachment to it, that doesn't change what it is.

And I also want to add, just because it is clump of cells, it doesn't trivialize a person's feelings about their pregnancy. When I say, "Its a clump pf cells," I'm stating an objective fact. I'm not saying that someone is stupid for being distraught about a lost pregnancy.

And MOST importantly, we can't shift the dialogue. Just because someone is sad about losing THEIR zygote or fetus, doesn't mean that it justifies legislating someone else's zygote or fetus because of feelings you had about your own pregnancy.

So your view on this is mainly a clinical/scientific view (which I already knew and largely agree with) but unfortunately that opens up the $64 question...

At what point does that clump of cells become human?

Is it somewhere along a continuum?

Is it a specific point during pregnancy?

Is it at birth?

Is at some point after birth?

Again, I only ask because I’m interested in what people think.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
Either way it's a clump of cells. A woman stating "I'm going to have a baby" is not the same as "this clump of cells is a baby."

True. And to add on:

If they THINK its a baby, it doesn't make it a baby.
If they have a strong emotional attachment to it, that doesn't change what it is.

And I also want to add, just because it is clump of cells, it doesn't trivialize a person's feelings about their pregnancy. When I say, "Its a clump pf cells," I'm stating an objective fact. I'm not saying that someone is stupid for being distraught about a lost pregnancy.

And MOST importantly, we can't shift the dialogue. Just because someone is sad about losing THEIR zygote or fetus, doesn't mean that it justifies legislating someone else's zygote or fetus because of feelings you had about your own pregnancy.

So your view on this is mainly a clinical/scientific view (which I already knew and largely agree with) but unfortunately that opens up the $64 question...

At what point does that clump of cells become human?

Is it somewhere along a continuum?

Is it a specific point during pregnancy?

Is it at birth?

Is at some point after birth?

Again, I only ask because I’m interested in what people think.

Hey this post seems similar to me
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.


yeah. you were. your "clumps of cells" jokes were sneering, particular toward someone who did have this procedure. this is your typical schtick. act boorishly toward women, say your wife read what you wrote and agrees with you, so you're absolved from how you treat others.


I’m actually intrigued with the idea that if a pregnancy is wanted then that clump of cells is considered a baby and if it isn’t wanted it’s just a clump of cells. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, it’s just an interesting thought problem.

As far the jokes go, I was joking with BLeP.

Also, I don’t believe that asking tough questions of someone who happens to be a woman is any more or less “boorish” then asking tough questions to a man.

I live under the assumption that women can handle themselves just fine.

what i might recommend is that if you're going to joke with BLeP at someone else's expense, you do it via PM, and not in front of the person at who's expense the joke is made.

no problem asking tough questions. the problem is when it's not asking, but sneering. also, it's a little different when you aren't the affected cohort. it's theoretical for you. it's academic. if you're an affected party, it's not academic. and no, you're not "affected" in any way close to the way a woman is affected. so your "tough" questions should be asked with the acknowledgement that you're mostly a spectator in this.

Oh, so women are exempt from being asked to clarify things?

And again my joking with BLeP was in response to WHAT BLEP SAID. There’s no woman (I assume you’re talking about ironclm) that was the butt of that.

As for being “affected” o can assure you that I have been profoundly affected by this issue. I’ve been there in the clinic on three occasions, once with my girlfriend and twice with my sister.

Also, my very own son survived an attempted abortion.

Is that different than what women deal with? Of course.

But it’s rather ignorant and callous of you to trivialize it.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I don’t have an answer and I’m not really passing judgement on the answers being put forth.


yeah. you were. your "clumps of cells" jokes were sneering, particular toward someone who did have this procedure. this is your typical schtick. act boorishly toward women, say your wife read what you wrote and agrees with you, so you're absolved from how you treat others.


I’m actually intrigued with the idea that if a pregnancy is wanted then that clump of cells is considered a baby and if it isn’t wanted it’s just a clump of cells. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, it’s just an interesting thought problem.

As far the jokes go, I was joking with BLeP.

Also, I don’t believe that asking tough questions of someone who happens to be a woman is any more or less “boorish” then asking tough questions to a man.

I live under the assumption that women can handle themselves just fine.


what i might recommend is that if you're going to joke with BLeP at someone else's expense, you do it via PM, and not in front of the person at who's expense the joke is made.

no problem asking tough questions. the problem is when it's not asking, but sneering. also, it's a little different when you aren't the affected cohort. it's theoretical for you. it's academic. if you're an affected party, it's not academic. and no, you're not "affected" in any way close to the way a woman is affected. so your "tough" questions should be asked with the acknowledgement that you're mostly a spectator in this.


Oh, so women are exempt from being asked to clarify things?

And again my joking with BLeP was in response to WHAT BLEP SAID. There’s no woman (I assume you’re talking about ironclm) that was the butt of that.

As for being “affected” o can assure you that I have been profoundly affected by this issue. I’ve been there in the clinic on three occasions, once with my girlfriend and twice with my sister.

Also, my very own son survived an attempted abortion.

Is that different than what women deal with? Of course.

But it’s rather ignorant and callous of you to trivialize it.

i agree with you. you shouldn't trivialize it. joke about it. esp at others' expense. esp when they're reading two guys joking about it.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You’re really appearing to be of the mind that the poor little dames are too fragile to stick up for themselves and need a man like you to white knight on their behalf.

It’s a bad look.

Most of the women I know can take care of themselves and for the ones who do need help it’s not because of their gender.

But hey good on you, cowboy, for always coming to the defense of (what you apparently consider to be) the weaker sex.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
You’re really appearing to be of the mind that the poor little dames are too fragile to stick up for themselves and need a man like you to white knight on their behalf.

It’s a bad look.

Most of the women I know can take care of themselves and for the ones who do need help it’s not because of their gender.

But hey good on you, cowboy, for always coming to the defense of (what you apparently consider to be) the weaker sex.

you've been told a number of times your jokes were in very poor form. now you're trying to turn it around, avoid responsibility, make yourself the victim. if past is prologue we'll start hearing about the women in your life who agree with you, who give you permission to write whatever you want, damn the consequences. i don't care. you can fail to learn, fail to identify a blind spot, fail to grow, remain in place.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
You’re really appearing to be of the mind that the poor little dames are too fragile to stick up for themselves and need a man like you to white knight on their behalf.

It’s a bad look.

Most of the women I know can take care of themselves and for the ones who do need help it’s not because of their gender.

But hey good on you, cowboy, for always coming to the defense of (what you apparently consider to be) the weaker sex.

you've been told a number of times your jokes were in very poor form. now you're trying to turn it around, avoid responsibility, make yourself the victim. if past is prologue we'll start hearing about the women in your life who agree with you, who give you permission to write whatever you want, damn the consequences. i don't care. you can fail to learn, fail to identify a blind spot, fail to grow, remain in place.

Now you’re just making stuff up.

Keep fighting the good fight, Sir Lancealot...



- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
You’re really appearing to be of the mind that the poor little dames are too fragile to stick up for themselves and need a man like you to white knight on their behalf.

It’s a bad look.

Most of the women I know can take care of themselves and for the ones who do need help it’s not because of their gender.

But hey good on you, cowboy, for always coming to the defense of (what you apparently consider to be) the weaker sex.


Weak, Duffy, and transparent to eveybody here. Everybody except you, I suspect. In your own words from a previous unprovoked and pointless personal attack you made earlier in this thread (#201) "Thanks for sharing. This post gives great insight into your psyche. "
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 17, 19 12:40
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Again, I only ask because I’m interested in what people think.

It a sin if it is done without a very good reason, but the severity of the sin increases the longer you wait. At 120 days the fetus becomes a person per classical Islamic jurists (based on Hadith and Quran), and all classic jurists agree at that point abortion is not allowed. Up until then as it goes through different stages, different schools either allow or do not. My independent thoughts align pretty well with that....it is deplorable at any time but the earlier the better.

I'm very curious, if there are any pro-life atheists, or even any that feel the law should set a timeline on abortion, how they ground this position?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
You’re really appearing to be of the mind that the poor little dames are too fragile to stick up for themselves and need a man like you to white knight on their behalf.

It’s a bad look.

Most of the women I know can take care of themselves and for the ones who do need help it’s not because of their gender.

But hey good on you, cowboy, for always coming to the defense of (what you apparently consider to be) the weaker sex.

you've been told a number of times your jokes were in very poor form. now you're trying to turn it around, avoid responsibility, make yourself the victim. if past is prologue we'll start hearing about the women in your life who agree with you, who give you permission to write whatever you want, damn the consequences. i don't care. you can fail to learn, fail to identify a blind spot, fail to grow, remain in place.

Now you’re just making stuff up.

Keep fighting the good fight, Sir Lancealot...


Well done Duffy. You’ve gone full

What’s next? Call him a cuck?

===============
Amen, bitches!
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Thanks for sharing. This post gives great insight into your psyche. "

Read those words out loud to yourself without a bit of sarcasm.

Say like you’d say thanks to someone who just made you a sandwich.

It wasn’t a personal attack.

Unbelievable how many people here are reading into shit that’s just not there.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dapper Dan wrote:
Quote:
Again, I only ask because I’m interested in what people think.

It a sin if it is done without a very good reason, but the severity of the sin increases the longer you wait. At 120 days the fetus becomes a person per classical Islamic jurists (based on Hadith and Quran), and all classic jurists agree at that point abortion is not allowed. Up until then as it goes through different stages, different schools either allow or do not. My independent thoughts align pretty well with that....it is deplorable at any time but the earlier the better.

I'm very curious, if there are any pro-life atheists, or even any that feel the law should set a timeline on abortion, how they ground this position?

Thanks for stating a religious perspective. I was asking Barry his thoughts from the scientific perspective.

As for atheist pro-lifers I know of at least two.

My wife is atheist and is against abortion. She wasn’t always but in recent years changed her mind.

I disagree with her on this and we’re able to discuss our disagreements, sometimes heated, and she doesn’t need slowman to stick up for her.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
You’re really appearing to be of the mind that the poor little dames are too fragile to stick up for themselves and need a man like you to white knight on their behalf.

It’s a bad look.

Most of the women I know can take care of themselves and for the ones who do need help it’s not because of their gender.

But hey good on you, cowboy, for always coming to the defense of (what you apparently consider to be) the weaker sex.


you've been told a number of times your jokes were in very poor form. now you're trying to turn it around, avoid responsibility, make yourself the victim. if past is prologue we'll start hearing about the women in your life who agree with you, who give you permission to write whatever you want, damn the consequences. i don't care. you can fail to learn, fail to identify a blind spot, fail to grow, remain in place.


Now you’re just making stuff up.

Keep fighting the good fight, Sir Lancealot...



Well done Duffy. You’ve gone full

What’s next? Call him a cuck?


Quite the opposite. Slowman is a real man. He’s not some sissy soy boi (like you). He comes on here to save all the poor little dames when they get all faint or hysterical. He’s no cuck. He’s a mans man.

Not like me. I have the pussy weak man idea that women are equally equipped to handle things and don’t need those masculine men for protection. I know I know, not very manly of me.

Slowman should change his name Marlboro Man.


PS: I could insult you and “make jokes at your expense” all day long and slowman wouldn’t say shit.

Because you’re a man. That’s a pretty good indicator of how he thinks about women. He sees them as weak.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Last edited by: Duffy: May 17, 19 13:48
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If I needed to make a list of the people in this forum that need someone else to defend them...….from my experience ironclm does not make the list.

If she is unhappy with something you have said I'm sure she will let you know

She came on here and volunteered an experience in her life. One she appears to be quite OK with (which I respect). In fact, I may be mistaken, but I think it was she who originally used the term in question.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironmayb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
If I needed to make a list of the people in this forum that need someone else to defend them...….from my experience ironclm does not make the list.

I don’t think she needs someone to defend her either, but slowman apparently thinks he need to defend her.

Quote:
If she is unhappy with something you have said I'm sure she will let you know

I have no doubt. In fact when she shared her experience with abortion here it solidified her position as someone who can handle things. Not everyone is willing to share such things because of the vulnerability aspect. There’s a great deal of strength in casting aside the fear of vulnerability.

Quote:
She came on here and volunteered an experience in her life. One she appears to be quite OK with (which I respect). In fact, I may be mistaken, but I think it was she who originally used the term in question.

Yes, her honesty and self assured stance on her experience and her views are worthy of respect.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:

Well the reason this came up for me was ironclm post to BLeP’s comment about the miscarriage of “a clump of cells” and how bad it felt, the implication that it was akin to losing a baby.

Ironclm’s response focused on the issue of want, which to me implied that if this clump of cells is “wanted” then it is a life, a human life.

If it’s not wanted it’s just a clump of cells.

I asked ironclm to clarify (or as slowman says, I “acted boorishly”) but ironclm has not yes responded.

clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:


Well the reason this came up for me was ironclm post to BLeP’s comment about the miscarriage of “a clump of cells” and how bad it felt, the implication that it was akin to losing a baby.

Ironclm’s response focused on the issue of want, which to me implied that if this clump of cells is “wanted” then it is a life, a human life.

If it’s not wanted it’s just a clump of cells.

I asked ironclm to clarify (or as slowman says, I “acted boorishly”) but ironclm has not yes responded.


clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.


your honor I rest my case......
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Well the reason this came up for me was ironclm post to BLeP’s comment about the miscarriage of “a clump of cells” and how bad it felt, the implication that it was akin to losing a baby.

Ironclm’s response focused on the issue of want, which to me implied that if this clump of cells is “wanted” then it is a life, a human life.

If it’s not wanted it’s just a clump of cells.

I asked ironclm to clarify (or as slowman says, I “acted boorishly”) but ironclm has not yes responded.

clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.

I think the question is pretty clear. You seemed to say that the wishes of the “mother” change the status of that thing in the womb.

In one case it’s a “clump of cells” in the other it’s a baby or potential human.

I think it’s an interesting thing to ponder v

Similar thing is that in some states if, say, a mugger kills a fetus that the mom wanted it’s murder. But that very same mom can have a doctor kill it and it’s a right guaranteed under the constitution.

I’m just wondering how people can reconcile those two seemingly contradictory ideas.

And again, just so we’re clear, I don’t have an answer and my asking you is for the purpose of hearing other people’s ideas.

My inquiries seem to have made a bunch of people very defensive.

I’m as pro choice as you can get and everyone seems to be totally ignoring that.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You seem to be willfully lacking in understanding. Up to a relatively late gestation point, I view a fetus as a clump of cells (a living clump with the potential of becoming a human, but so unformed as lacking in specific independent rights). The mother or couple may attach great importance to it, or not at all. Up to a point I believe that the choice of the mother to attach importance to that clump is of paramount importance. OTOH, some believe that a fertilized egg is fully human. Some folks believe that an unfertilized egg contains potentiality which shouldn't be interfered with via birth control. According to some, my friends who used IVF to conceive are murderers, as are women who use IUD's. Whether I agree or not,

... (wait for it) ...

I understand all of those points of views. It's just not that hard to understand viewspoints that differ from your own, especially on issues that are so closely tied to belief (the point at which an egg/embryo/fetus/baby gets rights which exceed the mother). Why can't you understand the legitimacy of other opinions?

BTW, you and I are clumps of cells, as is everyone in the world. We differentiate between the welfare of American clumps of cells over the rights of starving clumps of cells in other countries all the time. Why do we do that?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You seem to be willfully lacking in understanding.

Actually no. Keep reading...

Quote:
Up to a relatively late gestation point, I view a fetus as a clump of cells (a living clump with the potential of becoming a human, but so unformed as lacking in specific independent rights). The mother or couple may attach great importance to it, or not at all.

In other words you agree with me almost exactly. If you read my posts in this you will see just that because I have stated this very same thing numerous time in a few different ways.

Quote:
OTOH, some believe that a fertilized egg is fully human.

I disagree with those people and even though I disagree with them I am interested in how they come to that opinion. Usually but not always it’s religious. What I’m more interested in is those who come to this view without any religion. There are some, like BLeP for example.

Quote:
Some folks believe that an unfertilized egg contains potentiality which shouldn't be interfered with via birth control. According to some, my friends who used IVF to conceive are murderers, as are women who use IUD's.

Those people are idiots and I have no interest in hearing their justifications for such absurd thinking. That why I don’t engage with them. Zero interest.

Quote:
I understand all of those points of views. It's just not that hard to understand viewspoints that differ from your own, especially on issues that are so closely tied to belief (the point at which an egg/embryo/fetus/baby gets rights which exceed the mother). Why can't you understand the legitimacy of other opinions?

I do understand those view points and I don’t question the legitimacy of them (except for the anti-birth control dopes). I have stated explicitly here that I don’t have a right or wrong answer. I’m exploring the different view and I’m interested in how people come to their views. Sometimes I’ll ask challenging questions because explanations given don’t add up or haven’t fully explained how they have come to their view.

I’ve had a couple of people here who have “played along” and I now understand how they got to where they are.

Barry sees this purely scientifically (still the lingering question of when the clump becomes human).

BLeP sees it through the lens of his experience of trying to make a baby.

Ironclm sees it through the experience of having an abortion, among other things.

Dapper Dan sees it through a religious lens.

Quote:
BTW, you and I are clumps of cells, as is everyone in the world.

Yes. And I’ll ask you this, again I just want to hear what you think, it’s not a trick and I don’t have a right or wrong answer. This is an exploration of thought....

What makes the clump of cells we are now special? Are we special at all? My family is special to me but not to society as a whole so are we really special?

Quote:
We differentiate between the welfare of American clumps of cells over the rights of starving clumps of cells in other countries all the time. Why do we do that?

Nationalism.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
My inquiries seem to have made a bunch of people very defensive. I’m as pro choice as you can get and everyone seems to be totally ignoring that.

nobody could possibly ignore you. you make that impossible. we all know where you stand. in detail. in spectacular detail. nobody is getting defensive. when you write in a crass, off-putting way, people note that, you reject that interpretation, and confuse that reaction as defensive.

i applaud your curiosity. best thing about you. but then after inquiring, you berate the person giving the answer. not the best thing about you. cathy tried to give you her explanation. in vain. i did not post to help her. i posted to help you.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
but if a religious group "implement(s) those beliefs" thru enacting laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, we are all forced to adhere to those beliefs.

Quite frankly, so what? Everytime a law is passed that not everyone agrees with, some portion of the country is "forced" to adhere to someone else's beliefs. You say this as if any religious group is able to simply implement laws without the views of dissenting Americans figuring into the process. Take any issue, and you'll find people on both sides. The people on either side are free to support their chosen position based on whatever ideology informs their understanding. Religious people are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when forming an opinion on the issues. Atheists or secularists are free to use that framework of thought to inform their opinions. Both sides (and everyone who lies on the spectrum somewhere in between) are free to lobby their representatives, vote on the issues, and otherwise attempt to influence the future of their local, state, and federal governments. You act as if somehow it's not kosher for religious people to do that.

Quote:
religion is not like "every other interest group." as i wrote - and you just are not acknowledging it - the establishment and free exercise clauses protect our population from religion. this is a named peril. just as guns are not like shovels, religion is not like "other interests."

In the context we're discussing, it IS exactly like any other interest. You CAN NOT prohibit people from lobbying their government, or informing their position opinions, or choosing their representation using religious belief as an underpinning of their choices.

Quote:
religious folk can't hide behind this thru a degree of separation (electing reps who'll enact the law). you can't parse between individuals lobbying for this versus their state legislators doing it.

It's not hiding behind anything Dan. It's acknowledging that religious people have every right to include their religious beliefs in forming their opinions about how the government should work and who should represent them. The Constitution does not prohibit people from favoring one law over another, or one politician over another, for religious reasons. It simply doesn't.

Quote:
if a religious group thrusts its beliefs into law via direct election (initiative of referendum), it's still going to be struck down as unconstitutional. regardless of how it's done, no such law can stand.

You're not correct. If a religious group, using the lawful procedures of our country, successfully pushes through a law that enacts some policy that is in line with their religious beliefs, that doesn't necessarily make the law unconstitutional. Just because a law is in line with a religious belief and lobbied for by religious groups, that doesn't constitute an unconstitutional breach of your freedoms. Let's say that Religion X views speeding as a mortal sin. Religion X has sufficient numbers across the country that results in significant representation in Congress. Religion X lobbies their Congressmen, governors, and other politicians to increase penalties for speeding. Congress passes a law that increases the penalties for speeding. This law was passed largely due to the demand signal from adherents of Religion X. That doesn't make the law unconstitutional, because increasing the penalties for speeding does not amount to establishment of a state religion. Just because people's opinions on the law are informed by their religious beliefs, that doesn't constitutionally preclude them from influencing the law or the government.

Quote:
torcaso v watkins (1961): maryland had a law requiring politicians to state their belief in god in order to be on a ballot. struck down unamimously. the state - or the people in the state - cannot impose their religion on everyone.

No doubt, and pretty obvious. Not really pertinent to the type of situation we're talking about.

Quote:
engel v vitate (1962): the daily reading of a prayer in school: unconstitutional.

As I said before, you can't require people to take part in your religious rites. Again, not pertinent.

Quote:
abington township v schempp, and murray v curlett (1963): nope, can't require students on public schools to participate in a curriculum requiring daily bible reading.

More of the same from you. Not pertinent. I stipulated long ago that the laws can't be written to require anyone to take part in religious events or rites and that a law against speeding, for example, can't be written like "Wherefore God says speeding is wrong, therefore speeding shall be penalized by fines or prison."

Quote:
and plenty more. so when you maintain it is legal "for religious people to 'inflict' their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way," no.

What the fuck? I did not ever say it was ok for people to inflict their religions in any ways that compare to those examples. Try again Dan.

Quote:
but you cannot force me to keep my baby, if that effort to control my behavior flows from your religious beliefs.

Wrong. The 1A also guarantees that the government won't/can't infringe on the right of citizens to freely practice their religions. You can't insist that religious people set aside any religious belief when forming their opinions on laws, politicians, or other governmental matters, and still claim to be supporting the protections provided by the 1A. It's asinine.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ironclm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ironclm wrote:
clm has too much fucking work to do, training to do and 40 visiting attorneys to deal with. What exactly is your fucking question? You have diarrhea of the mouth and I don't have time to figure out what you are talking about.

I just spent two days presenting at a conference of 200+ attorneys, so, I feel your pain. Other than the fact that about 30 of them can drink with the best of them, not much good comes from large gatherings of attorneys.

To the thread in general - Wow. Just, wow.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
nobody could possibly ignore you.

Heh, I've made a good faith effort to ignore him. But Duffy can't just post his opinion once. He keeps repeating it until the thread is all about him. And then everyone has to quote it all day.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [TMI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What point are you trying to make?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Barry sees this purely scientifically (still the lingering question of when the clump becomes human).

That question was put to Slowman, not me. I thought he gave a pretty good answer.


At conception - not A human.

Right before birth - definitely a human.


So somewhere between those two points. Much like there isn't an exact score on an engineering exam that can definitively discern "qualified" vs "not qualified" engineer, or an exact, to the decimal ideal temperature in my living room, there isn't an exact point in time where a fetus goes from not human to human.

For me, anything before brain waves isn't a human. I can't really say at what point after that I would consider it a human.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
For me, anything before brain waves isn't a human. I can't really say at what point after that I would consider it a human.

How does it matter whether it is human or not? Is it neutral/beneficial to allow destroying non-human life but harmful (to those of us making the laws) to allow destroying human life (that isn't part of our law making club)?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amazingly, another thread about abortion has failed to resolve the issue. Maybe next time.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dapper Dan wrote:
Quote:
For me, anything before brain waves isn't a human. I can't really say at what point after that I would consider it a human.

How does it matter whether it is human or not? Is it neutral/beneficial to allow destroying non-human life but harmful (to those of us making the laws) to allow destroying human life (that isn't part of our law making club)?

I don’t think it matters if it’s human or not.

Many cultures throughout history practiced infanticide for a variety of reasons including human sacrifice (all over the world), because they were female (mostly native americans), because they were twins (again, native americans) or as a form of birth control in pre-Islamic Arabia.

We can argue all day long about when a zygote-fetus-clump-of-cells becomes human and their will never be an agreement.

So what we really should be arguing is - is it acceptable/beneficial as a society to take life (whatever you want to call it - “abortion” or “reproductive health services” or “infanticide”) in certain circumstances.

Now you may think that sounds crazy but look at it this way...

The one thing that we all can agree upon (well most of us) is that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing.

One step in doing that is to acknowledge that it is in fact the taking of life. That makes it a bit more unpalatable for most people and so they may try a little harder to prevent pregnancy in the first place by using birth control or abstaining from vaginal sex.

I don’t think we should shame people for wanting an abortion I just think we should be a little honest about what it really is. If this makes people uncomfortable, good. That’s the point.

But in the end abortion should remain legal, IMHO.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:

The one thing that we all can agree upon (well most of us) is that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing.

I agree. Just like "the wall" has distracted both sides from resolving how to really reduce the # of illegal entries, "abortion" has distracted both sides from resolving to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Political bloodsport is far more exciting than doing hard work to solve actual problems.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Duffy wrote:

The one thing that we all can agree upon (well most of us) is that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing.

I agree. Just like "the wall" has distracted both sides from resolving how to really reduce the # of illegal entries, "abortion" has distracted both sides from resolving to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Political bloodsport is far more exciting than doing hard work to solve actual problems.

Well this is why I just immediately write off the ant-birth control crowd.

If you don’t believe in birth control or abortion then you go right ahead and do your thing but making that a policy that everyone else has to abide by would be a net negative for our modern society.

On the other end of that we should cool it with the euphemisms.

Not every decision we make (as a society) is easy or clean.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
but if a religious group "implement(s) those beliefs" thru enacting laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, we are all forced to adhere to those beliefs.


Quite frankly, so what? Everytime a law is passed that not everyone agrees with, some portion of the country is "forced" to adhere to someone else's beliefs. You say this as if any religious group is able to simply implement laws without the views of dissenting Americans figuring into the process. Take any issue, and you'll find people on both sides. The people on either side are free to support their chosen position based on whatever ideology informs their understanding. Religious people are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when forming an opinion on the issues. Atheists or secularists are free to use that framework of thought to inform their opinions. Both sides (and everyone who lies on the spectrum somewhere in between) are free to lobby their representatives, vote on the issues, and otherwise attempt to influence the future of their local, state, and federal governments. You act as if somehow it's not kosher for religious people to do that.

Quote:
religion is not like "every other interest group." as i wrote - and you just are not acknowledging it - the establishment and free exercise clauses protect our population from religion. this is a named peril. just as guns are not like shovels, religion is not like "other interests."


In the context we're discussing, it IS exactly like any other interest. You CAN NOT prohibit people from lobbying their government, or informing their position opinions, or choosing their representation using religious belief as an underpinning of their choices.

Quote:
religious folk can't hide behind this thru a degree of separation (electing reps who'll enact the law). you can't parse between individuals lobbying for this versus their state legislators doing it.


It's not hiding behind anything Dan. It's acknowledging that religious people have every right to include their religious beliefs in forming their opinions about how the government should work and who should represent them. The Constitution does not prohibit people from favoring one law over another, or one politician over another, for religious reasons. It simply doesn't.

Quote:
if a religious group thrusts its beliefs into law via direct election (initiative of referendum), it's still going to be struck down as unconstitutional. regardless of how it's done, no such law can stand.


You're not correct. If a religious group, using the lawful procedures of our country, successfully pushes through a law that enacts some policy that is in line with their religious beliefs, that doesn't necessarily make the law unconstitutional. Just because a law is in line with a religious belief and lobbied for by religious groups, that doesn't constitute an unconstitutional breach of your freedoms. Let's say that Religion X views speeding as a mortal sin. Religion X has sufficient numbers across the country that results in significant representation in Congress. Religion X lobbies their Congressmen, governors, and other politicians to increase penalties for speeding. Congress passes a law that increases the penalties for speeding. This law was passed largely due to the demand signal from adherents of Religion X. That doesn't make the law unconstitutional, because increasing the penalties for speeding does not amount to establishment of a state religion. Just because people's opinions on the law are informed by their religious beliefs, that doesn't constitutionally preclude them from influencing the law or the government.

Quote:
torcaso v watkins (1961): maryland had a law requiring politicians to state their belief in god in order to be on a ballot. struck down unamimously. the state - or the people in the state - cannot impose their religion on everyone.


No doubt, and pretty obvious. Not really pertinent to the type of situation we're talking about.

Quote:
engel v vitate (1962): the daily reading of a prayer in school: unconstitutional.


As I said before, you can't require people to take part in your religious rites. Again, not pertinent.

Quote:
abington township v schempp, and murray v curlett (1963): nope, can't require students on public schools to participate in a curriculum requiring daily bible reading.


More of the same from you. Not pertinent. I stipulated long ago that the laws can't be written to require anyone to take part in religious events or rites and that a law against speeding, for example, can't be written like "Wherefore God says speeding is wrong, therefore speeding shall be penalized by fines or prison."

Quote:
and plenty more. so when you maintain it is legal "for religious people to 'inflict' their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way," no.


What the fuck? I did not ever say it was ok for people to inflict their religions in any ways that compare to those examples. Try again Dan.

Quote:
but you cannot force me to keep my baby, if that effort to control my behavior flows from your religious beliefs.


Wrong. The 1A also guarantees that the government won't/can't infringe on the right of citizens to freely practice their religions. You can't insist that religious people set aside any religious belief when forming their opinions on laws, politicians, or other governmental matters, and still claim to be supporting the protections provided by the 1A. It's asinine.

friend, you are free to vote for whatever you want. you and i both agree on that. you may vote your religious preferences. nothing stopping you. and, you may engage in, without govt intervention, your religious rites, and behaviors, with few exceptions (polygamy, and even that's iffy). no disagreement between us, not in how we think, and not in how either of us has explained his views in this thread.

a religious majority in my community is free to vote into law or practice, through our legislature, schoolboard, or any other authority, any law it wants. but, i am free to challenge the constitutionality of that law. and religion (for the 3rd time) is a specific constitutional carve-out: both protection for and protection from religion. the SCOTUS cases above, and others besides, are clear. you can't enshrine into law a behavior that all society must adhere to, if that behavior is in service of a religion (or is in service of a lack of any religion). there isn't a SCOTUS ruling against such a law that doesn't have its advocate arguing why it's not afoul of 1A. sometimes these advocates win (i believe a case in nebraska won successfully arguing that its recitation of something biblical was more a case of tradition than religion). but quite often these advocates lose.

christians are free to exercise their religion. your kids are usually free to pray together at public school, subject to certain prohibitions. and if your community is 98 percent christian it is free to vote in superintendents who'll enact a policy of public sponsored school prayer. but if that policy is challenged your community will lose.

abortion is an interesting case, and i'm not at all certain that a ban in it would withstand a 1A challenge. christians argue among themselves when viability occurs (most adopting a convenient interpretation that leaves open the process of in vitro fertilization). these intramural arguments are further evidence that the decision is a religious one. i took a break between the last sentence and this to google "establishment clause" along with "anti-abortion" and there's a spitload of scholarly debates. whether abortion is an establishment clause candidate appears a legitimate debate.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
How does it matter whether it is human or not?

Specifically it is important with respect to the question of whether or not it receives the rights of humans. If it was, for example, a dog, then it wouldn't receive human rights but rather animal rights (can kill, but not brutalize, for example).

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This debate always, IMO, suffers from the use if terminology that conflates issues. A zygote is "human life," by objective measure. It's a stage of human development, part of the life cycle of humanity.

So what. It doesn't describe what we're debating, and that is Personhood.

A zygote, blastocyst, or embryo is not a Person, though it quite clearly is "human life." A verifiably brain dead human has lost their Personhood, and so what we do with brain dead humans on life support does not possess the same rights as a person on life support suffering from pneumonia, acute renal failure, etc., and the courts very often have to step in and rule that they're no longer deserving of the time, energy, and resources it takes to preserve a person's life. Because that person no longer exists, and has no reasonable chance at regaining their viable personhood.

What we're talking about is persons' rights, and rightly, we've decided that the rights of the pregnant woman take priority over the human life inside of them. There is no clear line of distinction as to when a new human life attains personhood, and so we defer to the rights of the person who stands to sustain harm if that human life is permitted to develop into a person. The right focuses almost entirely on the non-existent rights of the unborn, while the left (and others) focus entirely on the right of the pregnant woman, and her right to not have the State demand that she assume the very real risks of pregnancy and delivery, not to mention the very real risks to her ability to reach her social and economic potential. You can't ignore those risks, as the right tends to do via legislation and moralizing, and still respect the individual rights of the woman.

That is in no way an endorsement of the practice of abortion. I hate it, but we have to acknowledge the reality of the situation and accept that necessary evil while doing everything humanly possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

"I'm just a man, no more or no less; bad as the worst, good as the best" - W
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'd also contend (not trying to sound callous) that right's to life are centered mainly around:

1 - pain and anguish of loved ones
2 - empathy toward the fear of dying
3 - emotional guilt that comes with the killing of another human
4 - the social contract (ie you don't kill my wife, I won't kill yours)

I'll also add in 5 - religious reasons, but unfortunately, you can justify just about anything using religion, so I don't really accept "because of my religion" as a moral justification. What you are really saying is, "Someone else came up with a reason and I chose to follow it." (this applies both to feeding the hungry and flying planes into buildings).

With regard to a zygote or embryo, 1 is currently left up to the mother. 2 doesn't apply because it can't feel. 3 is what is partially driving many to either want to ban abortion, or to very much not like it. 4 doesn't really apply.

5 is self explanatory.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you are not religious then 3 shouldn't really apply either...another human is no different that a stalk of corn, or even a rock...it's just an assembly of elements and of no worth in and of itself if nobody loves it or benefits from it. The "right to life" should only apply to those able to make the laws, as a social contract of self-interest and self-preservation. Reason 4 is the only legitimate reason, and as you say it wouldn't apply to a baby that nobody wants....or really a person of any age that nobody wants as long as they are not among those making the social contract.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
If you are not religious then 3 shouldn't really apply either...another human is no different that a stalk of corn, or even a rock...it's just an assembly of elements and of no worth in and of itself if nobody loves it or benefits from it.


If that's the only reason that you don't kill people, then please, for the sake of humanity, stay religious.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And to summarize to be clear, as an atheist:

1 - pain and anguish of loved ones

Even if I don't care about killing Bob 'cause Bob won't know the difference, his loved ones will. As an empathic person (an emotion that is beyond my control) I don't wish to hurt Bob's loved ones.

2 - empathy toward the fear of dying.

Even though Bob won't know the difference once he's dead, I feel empathy toward Bob knowing that he will die.

3 - emotional guilt that comes with the killing of another human.

Maybe I shouldn't care, but again, empathy is an emotion I have little control over.

4 - The social contract.

I don't want to die, so I agree not to kill you and you agree not to kill me.

5 - Religion

Does not apply.




To your point, "If you aren't religious then shouldn't you [fill in the blank]." As outlined above, nonreligious people don't generally go on self serving killing sprees. The fact that a religious person would think that the only reason not to kill is because they were ordered to do so by a god that they have no evidence even exists I find to be downright terrifying.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
The fact that a religious person would think that the only reason not to kill is because they were ordered to do so by a god that they have no evidence even exists I find to be downright terrifying.

Fortunately for you, hardly any religious people hold that opinion. So you can stop feeling so terrified of the horrible religious people all around you.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
The fact that a religious person would think that the only reason not to kill is because they were ordered to do so by a god that they have no evidence even exists I find to be downright terrifying.

You should take up the cross then to relieve the terror
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Quote:
If you are not religious then 3 shouldn't really apply either...another human is no different that a stalk of corn, or even a rock...it's just an assembly of elements and of no worth in and of itself if nobody loves it or benefits from it.


If that's the only reason that you don't kill people, then please, for the sake of humanity, stay religious.

If you really need religion to get you to be nice to people and not kill them, then you are in fact a piece of crap.

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wasn’t referring to any religious person. I was talking about Dan.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I wasn’t referring to any religious person. I was talking about Dan.

For clarity, I think you mean me here, not "the" Dan (slowman).

I'm just trying to understand the atheist logic here, especially pro-life atheists, not for the sake of anything but honest intellectual curiosity. I'm relaying to you what I think an atheist should believe so that you can correct my misconceptions. You seem to be saying "For the sake of humanity, I hope you don't do something for the sake of humanity". The reasoning doesn't seem at all grounded.

You said "If that's the only reason that you don't kill people, then please, for the sake of humanity, stay religious". You are generalizing here because my point was that it would be logical to kill people that are an absolute drain on society. This could include unwanted infant "people" among others - to keep this on topic. You say that you wouldn't do that out of "empathy", but atheists generally attribute emotions like empathy to a simple evolutionary adaptation, so it a pretty weak reason to defy a logical benefit to society. You say you cannot control it, but I suggest that you can and do all the time. You may feel empathy for the animal you are about to slaughter but logically you know that you must in order to eat. You may feel empathy for the families trying to come into this country but logically you know we have to set limitations. You feel empathy for the pet being put down.

Duffy and others seem to have the position that abortion, at least at some point, is killing a person, and that that is okay. But then Duffy says "If you really need religion to get you to be nice to people and not kill them, then you are in fact a piece of crap." You could reduce that to "if you think it is okay to kill people, you are (deplorable)". It's logically inconsistent with his position on abortion unless he believes himself to be deplorable. Although I'm quite sure that the point he wanted to make was just that he doesn't like religious people...an opinion often repeated.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dapper Dan wrote:
If you are not religious then 3 shouldn't really apply either...another human is no different that a stalk of corn, or even a rock...


I'm questioning the honesty of your self-stated seeking to understand the non-religious viewpoint when you assign beliefs like that to non-religious people. But if you're really being honest, as a non-religious person, other humans have enormous value to me. You mean to be conflating non-religiousness with some kind of extreme sociopathy.

Though I also don't think we should pretend that religious people are all on the same page. Far from it. Religious people of all religions run the gamut from full-on pro-choice, and on down through the full range of compromise positions until you get to birth control. And even before birth control on the extreme end. Including Catholics.


Quote:
The "right to life" should only apply to those able to make the laws, as a social contract of self-interest and self-preservation.


I don't understand this at all. Maybe I'm missing some context for something from further up in the thread?
Last edited by: trail: May 19, 19 15:10
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My understanding is the religious position has more to do with the assignment of a soul not the scientific definition of the process. If a soul enters the equation at conception then abortions are murdering a child whose soul then enters heaven and the would-be mother and doctor have committed murder.

When one intermixes the religious belief with the biological science then with the law it gets very complex. Taking an anti-abortion stance (to religious folks) is no different than pulling a 2 yr old off the railroad tracks when a train is coming. God brought all the factors together to create a baby with a soul and it requires protection. Something like that.

It’s an emotional connection to a human being in the creation process.

This is how the religious folks I know explain it to me and I haven’t seen any discussion in this thread related to this position. I understand their position and I understand the raw science of the process. But it can become challenging for many people.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, if you are truly interested in how an atheist thinks, all I can say is throw out all of the assumptions you just wrote and got back to the 4 points I listed.

Or if I can make this very simple, I don't kill Bob because I don't want to kill Bob. Any justification for killing him would have to outweigh my wants to not kill him, like being a threat to the safety of humanity (Hitler, for example). Simply being a drain isn't enough.

Let me ask you this, can you name a person that you would have killed if you didn't think God would disapprove?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
But it can become challenging for many people.

The whole thing is challenging. It's the confluence of so many issues: religion, science, healthcare, government, law, women's rights. Each one is a handful, and when you throw them all together it's a hell storm.

I like to think I understand the core "pro-life" belief. It's pretty simple: "It's state-sanctioned murder"

Maybe I like to oversimplify things, but in my view the core "pro choice" viewpoint is equally simple: "It's not state-sanctioned murder. So butt out of my life and my healthcare decisions."

I tend to think that the Roe "20 weeks" is a reasonable #. But I understand how some might not accept that.

It is somewhat of a zero-sum game, though. I don't see much room for compromise. I'm firmly "pro choice." But I generally don't ascribe badness on the "pro-life" crowd. They're generally good people, trying to do what they think is the right thing. I get annoyed when I don't get the same courtesy from pro-lifers - hence I don't like vaguely intellectual rhetoric which with the clear intended subtext: "You're a baby-killing sociopathic fuck." :)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah - get far enough on either side and it gets tiresome. My hope beyond hope was that Roe is accepted as settled law and we as a society move on to other issues we face. I suppose I can still hope SCOTUS affirm Roe and these states stop but I’m sure that’s a naive/idealistic position to take.

I only added to the thread because the concept of a ‘soul’ wasn’t inserted previously.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Yeah - get far enough on either side and it gets tiresome. My hope beyond hope was that Roe is accepted as settled law and we as a society move on to other issues we face. I suppose I can still hope SCOTUS affirm Roe and these states stop but I’m sure that’s a naive/idealistic position to take.

I only added to the thread because the concept of a ‘soul’ wasn’t inserted previously.

Roe is a shitty decision. You should hope for a new coherent decision that affirms a right to abortion if that is your position.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Dapper Dan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Duffy and others seem to have the position that abortion, at least at some point, is killing a person, and that that is okay.

That’s not my position.

Here we go, one more time.

IMHO abortion is taking “a life”. I am not willing to try to determine what that life actually is. At some point it becomes a person and I don’t know what that point is and it doesn’t matter to me.

Quote:
But then Duffy says "If you really need religion to get you to be nice to people and not kill them, then you are in fact a piece of crap." You could reduce that to "if you think it is okay to kill people, you are (deplorable)". It's logically inconsistent with his position on abortion unless he believes himself to be deplorable.

You’re missing an important distinction here. I have said that abortion is awful and it would be great if we lived in a world that never did them.

But abortion should remain legal. I personally would do whatever I could to stop someone in my family from getting one. If Mrs. Duffy got pregnant (not possible but play along) we never do that except to save her life.

If my son knocked up a teenage girl, if she was willing to give birth but didn’t want to be a mother we would take care of it.

Also, religion generally says you shouldn’t murder people. There’s plenty of killing that religious people are perfectly fine with.

You may think of abortion as murder, I may think of it as one of the many types of killing that we as a society tolerate.

That’s where the real disagreement lies in this. Unfortunately the debate is rarely, if ever, framed that way.

Most people aren’t as blasé about “killing babies” as I am. Most people value human life more than I do and I suspect that the pro-choice defensiveness in this thread demonstrates that deep down they do know abortion ends a life but they just can’t admit it.

Read this....

https://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/...iles/Infanticide.pdf

- The thrall alone takes instant vengeance; the coward never...
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Roe is a shitty decision. You should hope for a new coherent decision that affirms a right to abortion if that is your position.

And, what would that look like, and how would that make more sense? Roe is certainly a better attempt at policy than this Alabama law. It at least acknowledges two competing imperatives. Overturning Roe will almost assuredly result in a worse political outcome for many people, for most states and for the nation as a whole. I could certainly see Roe being affirmed, with an earlier limit on the abortion window, due to better sex education, technology to detect pregnancies, and an easier, earlier and more effective option for performing abortions. A revised and re-affirmed Roe would satisfy a super-majority on this issue, and really marginalize the extremes on both ends of this issue.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:
Roe is a shitty decision. You should hope for a new coherent decision that affirms a right to abortion if that is your position.

And, what would that look like, and how would that make more sense? Roe is certainly a better attempt at policy than this Alabama law. It at least acknowledges two competing imperatives. Overturning Roe will almost assuredly result in a worse political outcome for many people, for most states and for the nation as a whole. I could certainly see Roe being affirmed, with an earlier limit on the abortion window, due to better sex education, technology to detect pregnancies, and an easier, earlier and more effective option for performing abortions. A revised and re-affirmed Roe would satisfy a super-majority on this issue, and really marginalize the extremes on both ends of this issue.

They made up a constitutional right out of thin air. Make it commerce clause for all I care
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You didn't answer the question, what is your version of a coherent decision that affirms a right to abortion? It is what you hoped for. Second time asking....
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
You didn't answer the question, what is your version of a coherent decision that affirms a right to abortion? It is what you hoped for. Second time asking....

Something that doesn't create a right out of thin air. If it can't be done then the constitution would need to be changed
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Disagree on the guns and the smaller federal gov't points, but I am with you on the rest of'em.

Next races on the schedule: Oceanside 2020 (postponed), Santa Rosa 70.3 2020 (postponed)... nothing after that
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, you don't actually have one.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
So, you don't actually have one.

No. I think it should be left to each state unless enshrined in the Constitution.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

No. I think it should be left to each state unless enshrined in the Constitution.


So you explicitly oppose a federal law passed by Congress which would apply to all states? It seems that wildly divergent laws at the state level have historically increased regional animosity, and led to far worse problems (see Civil War, or segregation battles). You seem to be advocating for worsening poitical turmoil.
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 19, 19 20:23
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:

No. I think it should be left to each state unless enshrined in the Constitution.


So you explicitly oppose a federal law passed by Congress which would apply to all states? It seems that wildly divergent laws at the state level have historically increased regional animosity, and led to far worse problems (see Civil War, or segregation battles). You seem to be advocating for worsening poitical turmoil.

No I oppose SCOTUS creating a right out of thin air. If a Federal law is passed it is the law of the land.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, you want to reinstate anti-sodomy laws in individual states? There are an enormous set of rulings which enumerate rights not specifically granted by the Constitution, yet subject to interpretation by SCOTUS . Do you want to bring back Plessy v. Ferguson? How far do you take it? It is nowhere near as cut and dried as you think.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
So, you want to reinstate anti-sodomy laws in individual states? There are an enormous set of rulings which enumerate rights not specifically granted by the Constitution, yet subject to interpretation by SCOTUS . Do you want to bring back Plessy v. Ferguson? How far do you take it? It is nowhere near as cut and dried as you think.

Interesting take on my suggestion that something like the Civil Rights Act would be sufficient.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Would the Civil Rights Act have even been possible without Brown v. Board of Education? Would gay rights have advanced without Lawrence v. Texas? Do you disagree with the Windsor decision (ending DOMA)?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Supreme Court rules that a provision of an Indiana abortion law (which said the state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by race, sex or disability) that was blocked by a lower court, should remain blocked. It allowed part of the law that requires clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains to take effect.

http://cdn.cnn.com/...28/scotus-052819.pdf

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the court was right not to take up the provision at this time, but said justices "soon need to confront" the issue.

He added: "Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is duty bound to address its scope. In that regard, it is easy to understand why the District Court and the Seventh Circuit looked to Casey to resolve a question it did not address. Where else could they turn? The Constitution itself is silent on abortion."

So Thomas seems to want to take up the abortion issue, but other conservatives on the court didn't join his opinion.

https://www.cnn.com/...n-indiana/index.html
.
Quote Reply