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

[Endus]

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?

I disagree that vaccinations should be legally forced upon anyone.

With the caveat that I think it is also justifiable to deny access to certain basic services, like public education, if you're refusing to vaccinate your children for personal reasons (rather than medical, as approved by a doctor). Same for denying them access to any form of mass transit, public or private (since they're a disease vector by choice); so no planes, trains, or buses for them. Same for access to public spaces, including malls, stores, arenas, theaters, etc.

They should be free to make that decision. That decision should have major consequences.

But really, none of this has a fucking thing to do with abortion. You're derailing.

[Elegiac]

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.

Simply because I don't view it as a black and white issue. On the subject of rights there are many cases of conflict with each other and even sometimes within themselves. Like bodily autonomy.

In this case the tiebreaker entails an assessment of which option is the least noxious. In the case of bodily autonomy, the least noxious option is one wherein abortion is protected but vaccinations can be made mandatory for public participation.

[Shalcker]

I disagree that vaccinations should be legally forced upon anyone.

With the caveat that I think it is also justifiable to deny access to certain basic services, like public education, if you're refusing to vaccinate your children for personal reasons (rather than medical, as approved by a doctor). Same for denying them access to any form of mass transit, public or private (since they're a disease vector by choice); so no planes, trains, or buses for them. Same for access to public spaces, including malls, stores, arenas, theaters, etc.

They should be free to make that decision. That decision should have major consequences.

Okay, that's fair and consistent position to hold.

In this particular case performing abortion also becomes decision that holds major consequences.

[Elegiac]

Okay, that's fair and consistent position to hold.

In this particular case performing abortion also becomes decision that holds major consequences.

It does, they're just insufficiently demeaning for your tastes.

[Endus]

In this particular case performing abortion also becomes decision that holds major consequences.

Those consequences being the physical tax on the patient for the procedure, and possibly some emotional turmoil.

That's it. Nothing else is remotely warranted, not unless your goal is to victimize and abuse women, at least.

[Shalcker]

It does, they're just insufficiently demeaning for your tastes.

Umm, sorry, i don't follow? Who? What? Where does demeaning comes from?

- - - Updated - - -

Those consequences being the physical tax on the patient for the procedure, and possibly some emotional turmoil.
That's it. Nothing else is remotely warranted, not unless your goal is to victimize and abuse women, at least.

Plenty of people seem to think that your preferred treatment of anti-vaxxers is similarly unwarranted though.

[Elegiac]

Umm, sorry, i don't follow? Who? What? Where does demeaning comes from?

Wanting "consequences" for abortion assumes that abortion isn't a difficult enough experience and thus a consequence in of itself.

[Endus]

Plenty of people seem to think that your preferred treatment of anti-vaxxers is similarly unwarranted though.

The difference being that letting willfully unvaccinated people mix with the public directly increases the risks to everyone they encounter for the transmissions of communicable and preventable diseases, directly contributing to preventable outbreaks and thus, to human suffering.

Letting women get abortions has essentially no negative consequences whatsoever, again unless your goal is to make those women suffer, in which case their lack of suffering won't be to your satisfaction.

Trying to equate the two is horseshit.

[Shalcker]

Wanting "consequences" for abortion assumes that abortion isn't a difficult enough experience and thus a consequence in of itself.

The bill pushes all consequences on provider, and abortion certainly isn't difficult experience for medical provider of abortion. It is relatively routine procedure.

[Elegiac]

The bill pushes all consequences on provider

And by extension the patient, because imprisoning anyone who is capable of performing the procedure legally and safely means the only people who do it are untrained people in unsafe conditions.

This isn't a new argument. It's how things were in the United States prior to Roe v. Wade.

[draynay]

But really, none of this has a fucking thing to do with abortion. You're derailing.

Obviously, so why are you helping him do it?

[Shalcker]

Section 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion except as provided for by subsection (b).
(b) An abortion shall be permitted if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. Except in the case of a medical emergency as defined herein, the physician's determination shall be confirmed in writing by a second physician licensed in Alabama. The confirmation shall occur within 180 days after the abortion is completed and shall be prima facie evidence for a permitted abortion.

You honestly believe doctors will sign off on this? Then have a 2nd physician do it? They're facing 99 years in prison. This bill indirectly removes the doctor's primary responsibility from the equation, because he has to be extremely sure that he's not only acting in the mother's best interest, but in the state's best interest too. Who has more knowledge of the situations? The doctor or the politician?

If doctor has the requisite knowledge and facts of the medical case, he should definitely be able to justify it in writing so that his decision would stand up in a court (and to second physician who confirms it).

If he doesn't when there is clear medical emergency to do it, he is obviously doing malpractice.

How many of those abortions that were not medical emergencies that could have turned into one?

Now you're splitting hairs...

If a woman is in the 1st trimester and it's determined the fetus is not viable, that is not a medical emergency and wouldn't fall into the category. The woman decides to end the pregnancy rather than go through the anguish of delivering a non-viable child to term.

Well, how many could that be by your estimation?
I don't think it would be that many, but maybe there is something in the water somewhere that induces obvious abnormalities.

But still, you're giving stats from a small state among 50. Alabama's already made it pretty hard to have an abortion anyway by closing down clinics. Many go to neighboring states.

That's because we're in a thread about Alabama's law.

Unknowable. Best case sure, but that's it.

Even half of that would be quite a lot.

[Shalcker]

And by extension the patient, because imprisoning anyone who is capable of performing the procedure legally and safely means the only people who do it are untrained people in unsafe conditions.

Out-of-state abortions are more likely (for those who can afford it).

Or they could just deliver a baby. That is relatively safe in general, especially compared to illegal abortions.

This isn't a new argument. It's how things were in the United States prior to Roe v. Wade.

Sometimes things have to be re-tested to confirm or overturn previous decisions.

[Elegiac]

Out-of-state abortions are more likely (for those who can afford it).

Most can't, because the anti-choice states tend to be the poorer ones.

Or they could just deliver a baby. That is relatively safe in general, especially compared to illegal abortions.

Or they could just get a safe abortion, which is much safer than pregnancy.

And no, pregnancy isn't "relatively safe" even in developed countries.

Sometimes things have to be re-tested to confirm or overturn previous decisions.

There's been no demonstrated compelling need to do so. Again, considering the pro-life movement in the US is a political contrivance of no moral substance.

[Rasulis]

Out-of-state abortions are more likely (for those who can afford it).

Or they could just deliver a baby. That is relatively safe in general, especially compared to illegal abortions.

Sometimes things have to be re-tested to confirm or overturn previous decisions.

Maternal mortality rate in Alabama was 11.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2018.

The mortality rate related to induced abortion in the US in 2018 was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

All data readily available from CDC.

[Shalcker]

Or they could just get a safe abortion, which is much safer than pregnancy.

*checks* Yeah, looks about 14 times safer, true.

So, we would expect...

Wait, wtf? Maternal death rate actually climbed to from 8.8/100000 in that estimate to freaking 23.8/100000 on average for US? With worst State, Georgia, going as high as 46.2/100000?

Alabama numbers are 11.0/100000 for 2018 though, at #7 overall.

So, we would be trading about ~0.004 deaths per year from abortions to ~0.75 potential mother deaths per year there if everyone who aborted would carry to term while gaining ~6800 extra babies.

[Rasulis]

*checks* Yeah, looks about 14 times safer, true.

So, we would expect...

Wait, wtf? Maternal death rate actually climbed to from 8.8/100000 in that estimate to freaking 23.8/100000 on average for US? With worst State, Georgia, going as high as 46.2/100000?

Alabama numbers are 11.0/100000 for 2018 though, at #7 overall.

So, we would be trading about ~0.004 deaths per year from abortions to ~0.75 potential mother deaths per year there if everyone who aborted would carry to term while gaining ~6800 extra babies.

You are forgetting to include the infant death rate of 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in Georgia and 8.5 in Alabama.

[cubby]

How is a woman fighting against her own interests if they support republican party?

It's pretty fucking obvious. The GOP, without any female representation, legislates what women can do with their bodies. Voting for the GOP as a woman is therefore voting against your own interests. Pretty fucking simple concept.

- - - Updated - - -

You are forgetting to include the infant death rate of 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in Georgia and 8.5 in Alabama.

And he's completely ignoring the rights of women to make decisions for themselves.

[muto]

There should be an exception for rape/incest.

[Flower Milk]

I don't know if anyone brought it up yet, but Alabama also grants parental rights to rapists. So not only will you be forced to carry your rapist's child, but you also will be forced to have your rapist be apart of your and your child's life. And if that child is a daughter and your rapists rapes them, too? She'll also be forced to carry that rapist's child.

If you're reading this and are thinking to yourself "that's totally fine", I just want you to know that you're a disgusting human being, and I'm not religious, but I hope to god there is a hell for you to burn in for thinking it's okay for women to be treated that way and for rapists to have that much power over them.