Alabama R's tried to make all abortion a felony to force a SCOTUS decision

[Captain N]

That might be the only way to have the abortion debate end... focus on government forcing child support, on men who didn’t want the baby.

So what you're saying is -- If life begins at conception and a fetus is considered a baby then child support payments should start immediately too?

[Felya]

You knew I was talking about those who made a choice but yet you felt the need to be dishonest. I am fine with abortion for rape victims.

What’s dishonest about getting an abortion? The dishonest part will start, when there is a crisis of pregnant women ‘accidentally’ falling down a flight of stairs.

[s_bushido]

So what you're saying is -- If life begins at conception and a fetus is considered a baby then child support payments should start immediately too?

lol

I don't think that's what he was saying, but it sounds fitting.

[JohnBrown1917]

Like the action of being raped, sure.

Hey man, that 11 year old that got raped by a family member should be forced to give birth to appease or sky fairy!

[Felya]

So what you're saying is -- If life begins at conception and a fetus is considered a baby then child support payments should start immediately too?

No, I am saying that the only way this debate ends, is if the focus is on how it negatively impacts men. For those bitching about women trapping them with children, they can now blame the government for it.

[Captain N]

No, I am saying that the only way this debate ends, is if the focus is on how it negatively impacts men. For those bitching about women trapping them with children, they can now blame the government for it.

But how are those women trapping them? Aren't those men supposed to just keep it in their pants? Aren't they also to blame for the conception?

Oh...I get it....

You need to actually make men feel a negative impact like the constant shit they throw at women.

[JohnBrown1917]

hmm... Maybe.


Well, yeah. Sharia is only bad when it's Muslims imposing it, apparently.

Get automatic voter registration, get rid of gerrymandering, make it far easier to vote[more polling places, time off from wrok] and put up candidates that run on issues that benefit the working class, and watch the GoP never be in power ever again.

[Themius]

So how many pro lifers are jacking off and using condoms? Millions upon millions of potential babies dead.

[Mayhem]

So, where is the fine line of "making sense" here?

Waste of time.

How does carrying baby to term harms anyone? This legislation certainly condones abortion if harm can be proven.

... don't play stupid

"Mother (in Ohio) opposes vaccination on religious grounds, goes against wishes of father to vaccinate, gets jailed for not following court order to vaccinate (for about 9 months), loses custody of kid in question and he gets vaccinated anyway."

So she was opposing vaccination for her child, not herself? That's not exactly anywhere near the pro-choice territory as it's not her body.

Makes a lot of arguments about choice that can be translated into pro-abortion stance word-for-word.

No, they can't. The kid is already born.

Not vaccinating does not directly harms any human being though, it just increases risks.

You get it though, the difference, right?

Would you be okay with abortions being forbidden if Republicans would show specific risks increasing from reduced birth rates?

No, because it's a different issue all together. God, you're thicker than usually.

From universalist perspective i can see either that both forced vaccinations AND forbidden abortions could happen, or, alternatively, both could be left to be decided by individual.

Ok, since you can't get the difference into your head I'm not going to waste any more time.

[Shalcker]

You get it though, the difference, right?

Let me give you different framing.

Ultimately, vaccination is about more people living. Preservation of humans as species. The process of vaccination is just one of the means to that end - which is seen as desirable by itself regardless of other considerations.

Banning abortion also, ultimately, results in more people living. People doing their part in preserving and multiplying themselves, just like in case of vaccinations.

[Paranoid Android]

This is also Sharia Law. Yes has been stated multiple times, but this is based heavily on religious beliefs. Ironic in many ways since you mention Sharia Law to Republicans and its one of their biggest boogie men ever.

I also believe it's forcing their religious beliefs onto OT hers. It's definitely based on Christian faith and not going too deep but never stated in the Old and New Testament. More based on some sect making this law thousand of years when life was different.

[Captain N]

This is also Sharia Law. Yes has been stated multiple times, but this is based heavily on religious beliefs. Ironic in many ways since you mention Sharia Law to Republicans and its one of their biggest boogie men ever.

I also believe it's forcing their religious beliefs onto OT hers. It's definitely based on Christian faith and not going too deep but never stated in the Old and New Testament. More based on some sect making this law thousand of years when life was different.

But according to America's Best Christian their God loves abortions:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1128512833304629248

[s_bushido]

This is also Sharia Law. Yes has been stated multiple times, but this is based heavily on religious beliefs. Ironic in many ways since you mention Sharia Law to Republicans and its one of their biggest boogie men ever.

Even more ironic when Alabama is one of those states to write laws banning Sharia. But, of course, it specifies that those are "foreign" laws that infringe its citizens' constitutional rights...because domestic laws that infringe its citizens' constitutional rights are just fine.

[Paranoid Android]

Even more ironic when Alabama is one of those states to write laws banning Sharia. But, of course, it specifies that those are "foreign" laws that infringe its citizens' constitutional rights...because domestic laws that infringe its citizens' constitutional rights are just fine.

Well yes. Remember it's not bad Sharia Law when it's your Sharia Law.

Another good point is they are not even proactive in birth control. Abstinence? That is a joke. So they go back to this Bronze Age thinking of keep having more children.

Not too mention as stated the party wants this doesn't give a shit about the. It’s not even simple argument of welfare, but actually supporting the person with education, job opportunities, etc., to be a productive member of society.

[Shalcker]

Banning abortion does not conclusively result in more people living.
1) Banning abortion won't stop abortion. If a woman truly doesn't want it, she'll find a way to get rid of it, possibly killing herself in the process.
2) The countless amounts of abortions that are REQUIRED due to medical reasons would result in more deaths of mothers, and possibly deaths of babies.

...plenty of people want/don't things at different levels, you might not get everyone but you don't have to get 100% for improvement (just like with vaccinations). It's about changing balance of incentives.

Bill also specifically excludes #2. No penalty to (potential) mother at all, it's all on abortion provider.

The bill would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by up to 99 years in prison. The only exception would be when the pregnancy endangers the woman’s health.
There would be no punishment for the woman receiving the abortion, only for the abortion provider.

Also, abortions for medical reasons aren't actually "countless"; there should be statistics on that.

Looking at 2017 statistics, there was exactly one medical emergency out of 6768 abortion total.

For comparison, there were 58941 total births that year; not having any abortions would (potentially) increase births by more then 10%.

There is no high moral ground for abortion. People should abandon the follies of an outright ban(we gonna knock on every door of a woman that didn't carry to term? Pregnancy registries?) and move from that position and understand all aspects of why women get abortions. Most abortions occur in the 1st 6 weeks(like 90+ percent). The rest are mainly due to MEDICAL REASONS that no politician or citizen not involved should ever get a say in.

Well, they aren't.

[Elegiac]

Let me give you different framing.

No. Because neither vaccination nor abortion are functions of the right to life.

[Shalcker]

No. Because neither vaccination nor abortion are functions of the right to life.

Why exactly?

[Endus]

No. Because neither vaccination nor abortion are functions of the right to life.

More specifically, if you want to make this about basic human rights, appealing to a fetus' hypothetical right to life (emphasized because the fetus isn't a person and doesn't actually have any rights) doesn't make a case against abortion. It only argues that abortions should remove the fetus intact, and allow it to expire naturally as a result. That's the most you can ever get out of the "right to life" bullshit.

Because nobody's right to life ever trumps the right to bodily autonomy of someone else. Under any other circumstances. And there is no reason to change that position with the specific case of abortion rights.

[Elegiac]

More specifically, if you want to make this about basic human rights, appealing to a fetus' hypothetical right to life (emphasized because the fetus isn't a person and doesn't actually have any rights) doesn't make a case against abortion. It only argues that abortions should remove the fetus intact, and allow it to expire naturally as a result. That's the most you can ever get out of the "right to life" bullshit.

Because nobody's right to life ever trumps the right to bodily autonomy of someone else. Under any other circumstances. And there is no reason to change that position with the specific case of abortion rights.

There is a case to be made that the exact limitations surrounding abortion's availability might need to be compromised in order to secure that right more generally.

Was listening to NPR the other day and there was a fairly thoughtful interview regarding the abortion debate and Democratic electability. Given the polling there is some suggestion that advocacy should be towards a European style model - cheap and readily available in the first trimester, but prohibited in all but extreme cases otherwise. It's not ideal, but it's a decent baseline which may be easier to sell.

- - - Updated - - -

Why exactly?

Bodily autonomy is the question at play, not life.

[Shalcker]

Because nobody's right to life ever trumps the right to bodily autonomy of someone else. Under any other circumstances. And there is no reason to change that position with the specific case of abortion rights.

It is often argued that vaccinations should be able to bypass that. And refusing them is clearly about bodily autonomy issues.

Or do you disagree?

- - - Updated - - -

Bodily autonomy is the question at play, not life.

Vaccination against their will is clearly "using their fluids" for purpose of herd immunity though, i don't see how you can see one as violation and other not.

There can be overriding concerns, sure, but bodily autonomy is clearly violated there.