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

[Shalcker]

You inserted "human life is sacred" in the second, for no reason, to try and present this (falsely) as a contest between two religious perspectives.
It isn't. That's a lie.

That is just modern humanist perspective. With inherent worth of human life taken for granted rather then proven; that part is common between many religious and non-religious people.

This is entirely about religious extremists trying to force religious rules on the rest of the population. That's all the pro-life movement fundamentally is. There's nothing else in there.

What i said doesn't deny this at all.

They just have better legislative representation in Alabama.

[cubby]

You know it's a bad bill when Pat Robertson say's "it's gone too far".

[Edge-]

You know it's a bad bill when Pat Robertson say's "it's gone too far".

But not for moral reasons. It's purely strategic, he doesn't think the law will hold up if taken to the Supreme Court.

Because politics trumps morality, even for the moral crusaders.

[Belize]

Or they'll do what some people in this thread have done -- and make up some weird false equivalencies like Liberals are dumping waste on people in Alabama they want to kill everyone!

Don't be silly, dumping waste in Alabama would be a drastic improvement over what's currently there.

[Rasulis]

This whole thing is an exercise in futility. Anti-abortion lawmakers have already managed to whittle down abortion clinics the three in Alabama and one in Mississippi. As it is, abortion for women over 15 week pregnant in Alabama already has to be performed in neighboring states.

All overturning Roe vs. Wade would do is increase the volume of out-of-state abortions which is already at record high. Forty nine (49) percent of abortions in Kansas are out of state, 29% in New Mexico, over 5,000 (approximately 16%) in Illinois. Basically pro-choice states in close proximity to the bible belt states have seen large increases of our-of-state abortions. There are organizations, like Yellowhammer, in the anti-abortion states that make arrangement for out-of-state procedure and provide travel for low-income women that need abortion.

[Slybak]

No woman is going to be jailed. Prison term is for medical provider only.

So, you got to amend this heart-wrenching story to having to carry rapist baby then give him/her up for adoption.

This is correct. Conservatives don't even consider women to be human enough to be held accountable for abetting an act they consider to be murder.

[Zan15]

Nothing like your rapist getting less time in jail then your doctor...by a factor of 10

[Blur4stuff]

Doctors won't be much of an issue. Right now you can easily buy drugs and have them delivered to terminate a pregnancy.

[Rasulis]

Nothing like your rapist getting less time in jail then your doctor...by a factor of 10

I wonder if more doctors will end up leaving Alabama. Here is the evaluation of American Medical Colleges on the status of Alabama which ranked fifth for states with the lowest number of doctors per capita in 2012.

> Doctors per 100,000 people: 178.0
> Medical students per 100,000 people: 22.2 (tied-17th lowest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 14.6% (23rd highest)
> Life expectancy: 75.2 years (3rd lowest)

Alabama's population is especially unhealthy. About 70% of adults were either overweight or obese, while 13.2% were told by a doctor they had diabetes — both the highest rates in the nation. At 75.2 years, Alabama has the nation's third-lowest life expectancy. A shortage of doctors makes addressing health concerns within the state difficult. Alabama had just 22.2 medical students and 25.3 doctors in residence programs per 100,000 people, both considerably lower than their respective national rates of 31.4 and 35.8 per 100,000. Currently, there are only two accredited medical schools in Alabama. One of these, the University of Alabama School of Medicine, plans to open to a new regional campus to assist the state in training more doctors.

The state got a little better in 2018.

206 active physicians per capita

Student enrollment per capita of 28.9, and number of fellows and residents in ACGME programs per capita of 27.8 are not ideal but Alabama’s got real problems. Being the state with the second highest obesity rate of 35.6 percent, and add to that hypertension rate of whopping 40.4 percent, the third highest diabetes rate of 13.5 percent, physical inactivity rate of 31.9 percent and you’ve got a bleak picture of that state’s health. Life expectancy at birth of 75.4 years seems somewhat optimistic.

[Pendulous]

I wonder if more doctors will end up leaving Alabama. Here is the evaluation of American Medical Colleges on the status of Alabama which ranked fifth for states with the lowest number of doctors per capita in 2012.

Our local hospital closed down years ago. And a whole bunch of hospitals in the state are just as fucked:

• In Alabama, a state that just passed a total ban on abortion, more than a quarter of children live in poverty; 30 percent of those children are under the age of five.

• Only half of Alabama’s 67 counties have an obstetrician.

• Infant care for a single child in Alabama takes up an average of 11 percent of a family’s income. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, child care costs are unaffordable when they exceed 7 percent of a family’s income.

•Single mothers in Alabama spend 29 percent of their income on childcare costs.

• Child care costs for families with two children—an infant and a four year old—cost 28 percent more than the average rent in the state.

• About 88 percent of Alabama’s rural hospitals are operating “in the red.”

• Alabama has the second highest infant mortality rate in the country.

• More children are living in poverty in Alabama now than they were almost 20 years ago, and the state has the fifth highest child poverty rate in the country

• Alabama’s child food insecurity rate is 22.5 percent. The national average is 17.5 percent.

• There are no maternity leave or family leave laws in the state of Alabama.

These "lawmakers" have no intent, not a single one, to address any of this.

[infinitemeridian]

If body autonomy trumps right to life, is a mother within her right to starve her child because it violates her bodily autonomy to provide the child with food?

[zorkuus]

If body autonomy trumps right to life, is a mother within her right to starve her child because it violates her bodily autonomy to provide the child with food?

Care to explain how?

[infinitemeridian]

Care to explain how?

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/ar...R9saVRN0Fuvk-Q

Would you agree that the parents of the child in the article above are justified in their actions, because the child was infringing on their rights to bodily autonomy? They shouldn't be forced to feed him if they don't feel like it.

[Edge-]

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/ar...R9saVRN0Fuvk-Q

Would you agree that the parents of the child in the article above are justified in their actions, because the child was infringing on their rights to bodily autonomy? They shouldn't be forced to feed him if they don't feel like it.

...what? That's not what bodily autonomy is at all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

And yes, there are laws against abusing a child. A child is different than a fetus. This is an extremely bad faith argument.

[zorkuus]

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/ar...R9saVRN0Fuvk-Q

Would you agree that the parents of the child in the article above are justified in their actions, because the child was infringing on their rights to bodily autonomy? They shouldn't be forced to feed him if they don't feel like it.

The article is restricted so I can't comment. Anyway... how does feeding a child infrindge on someone's rights to bodily autonomy? And if it does, the child would be just taken to custody. Where's the problem? The parents should be able to sill keep the child even though they are not feeding it? Is that your argument?

[Orbitus]

If body autonomy trumps right to life, is a mother within her right to starve her child because it violates her bodily autonomy to provide the child with food?

The mother's body isn't required to feed the baby. We have such things as formula now. So no, the mother isn't within her rights to starve her child.

[infinitemeridian]

...what? That's not what bodily autonomy is at all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

And yes, there are laws against abusing a child. A child is different than a fetus. This is an extremely bad faith argument.

"emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."

isn't the parents choosing not to feed the child sign of their own personal autonomy? The threat of a crime is coercion to feed the child.

[zorkuus]

"emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."

isn't the parents choosing not to feed the child sign of their own personal autonomy? The threat of a crime is coercion to feed the child.

Yes abusing kids is a crime and the vast majority of people are fine with it. Now come up with a real argument.

[D Luniz]

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/ar...R9saVRN0Fuvk-Q

Would you agree that the parents of the child in the article above are justified in their actions, because the child was infringing on their rights to bodily autonomy? They shouldn't be forced to feed him if they don't feel like it.

gonna respond like your not being purposefully dense to try and derail

a child can survive without that adult, i.e. anyone can give them a bottle, and they'll live

bodily autonomy refers to the adult's ACTUAL BODY, a zygote/fetus has to be attached to that adult, that adult either has agency over their body to detach that zygote/fetus, or they dont

if you cant feed your child after they ae born, almost every state has "Baby moses" laws where you can go to a Fire Dept or Police station to give them up

[infinitemeridian]

Yes abusing kids is a crime and the vast majority of people are fine with it. Now come up with a real argument.

I thought that right to bodily autonomy trumped right to life? Or is it not that it "trumps" it, but it only applies some of the time?