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

[Gestopft]

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.

"Pro-life"

[Xyonai]

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.

No, they are not. I know you're hoping to bait some kind of smug 'Oh ho, so killing someone that's inconveniencing you is wrong, then~?' gotcha moment, but there's a difference here and trying to conflate abortion to child abuse is just being intentionally disingenuous.

Edit - But I'll add more to this, because I feel like a non-answer to a non-question isn't good enough. The rights we're speaking of here are the same that prevent someone from forcing another person to undergo an organ transplant, or give blood - even if you're already dead. Bodily autonomy is also why you can't just have sex with someone who's unconscious or asleep, assault someone you don't like, or kidnap someone.

The instances being argued here is that the Mother's Bodily autonomy trumps the fetus' because in this instance she's using her physical body to house and grow that child. A fully autonomous child that requires the Parent(s) to care and raise for it is a whole other thing, as the mother is no longer giving up her physical body - in a medical sense - to keep the child healthy and raise it. At that point the Child is his own person, even if Society and Laws still limit what that child can do autonomously of its parents.

[zorkuus]

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?

The kid didn't ask to be given birth did it? It's not his fault the parents are dicks. He's taken to custody and the parents are punished according to law. Done and done.

[infinitemeridian]

Is there an actual legal definition of body autonomy that isn't just a wikipedia article? If the right to body autonomy is so important, seems like many crimes like starving your child (Can't force me to use my body to feed my child) would be made null and void if that were the case.

[zorkuus]

Is there an actual legal definition of body autonomy that isn't just a wikipedia article? If the right to body autonomy is so important, seems like many crimes like starving your child (Can't force me to use my body to feed my child) would be made null and void if that were the case.

Laws are not absolutes. Everything has exceptions when they serve a sensible purpose. If you accidentally kill a person in self defence (and it can be proven) you are not going to get locked up for murder.

[Benggaul]

Alabama’s antiabortion governor urges respect for life, will oversee a 7th execution

Things are so awful in Alabama now reporters can't even hide their snark.

[zorkuus]

Alabama’s antiabortion governor urges respect for life, will oversee a 7th execution

Things are so awful in Alabama now reporters can't even hide their snark.

I will start calling them pro-fetus from now on, they don't give a crap about life once it's out of the womb.

[D Luniz]

Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious & that every life is a sacred gift from God.

go to any story about how long death row takes, or how hard it is to get drugs that make it "humane"
and understand "deeply held" must mean they held that belief deep underwater till the bubbles stopped

[s_bushido]

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 lengths people will go in a desperate attempt to justify this pro-birth bullshit are really astounding.

[Endus]

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?

That's not, in any respect whatsoever, about bodily autonomy. So your question is distractingly wrong on its face and thus not worth answering.

Is there an actual legal definition of body autonomy that isn't just a wikipedia article? If the right to body autonomy is so important, seems like many crimes like starving your child (Can't force me to use my body to feed my child) would be made null and void if that were the case.

It's framed in different language in different nations. Bodily integrity, or the various sub-partitions of the right, like right to life, liberty, security of person, right to no cruel and unusual punishment, banning of slavery, etc.

The right is just that you are the arbiter of your own body and its use. This right is why the government can't harvest your organs against your will. Even after death.

You couldn't force a woman to breastfeed a child, but outside of that, a parent still has obligations to support and care for that child, including feeding it properly.

It does not apply to the use of anything outside your body; like forcing you to pay for your child's food so they don't starve, which is why your argument is nonsense.

[Adam Jensen]

'Secular'? Don't they still have their presidents say oath of office using Bible, as well as mention god on their currency?

No Ted Crockett, presidents don't have to swear on a bible.



Not to mention it is literally unconstitutional to be forced to swear on a bible or any religious artifact.

The "In God We Trust" shit was added in the 50's to separate us from those "godless commies" as a part of the Red Scare. There have been plenty of court cases challenging it, though none have come to bear fruit yet. I personally believe such a statement is an endorsement of religion by government and therefore in violation of the 1st.

So if we actually followed our constitution, we would be a secular nation.

[Felya]

The kid didn't ask to be given birth did it?

That’s a very good point. Since we are told illegals cause murder, when ever a single murder occurs. I think we can clearly see, that these people banning abortion, want another Hitler to be born. I don’t mean to go all Godwin, insert any villain. But, if Hitler was aborted, millions of people wouldn’t have been murdered. Why are these people forcing us to live through another Hitler? Can you imagine how many lives could have been saved, if we built a wall between government and our own bodies? Son of Sam? Could have been aborted... Ted Bundy? Aborted... It’s like they want more cannibal murderers... but, why? I’m not accusing anyone... just asking... why?

/sarcasm

Edit: oh and anyone who falls for the “just asking...” bullshit that’s so common on YouTube. You are a moron... a god damn, brainless smagma...

[infinitemeridian]

That's not, in any respect whatsoever, about bodily autonomy. So your question is distractingly wrong on its face and thus not worth answering.



It's framed in different language in different nations. Bodily integrity, or the various sub-partitions of the right, like right to life, liberty, security of person, right to no cruel and unusual punishment, banning of slavery, etc.

The right is just that you are the arbiter of your own body and its use. This right is why the government can't harvest your organs against your will. Even after death.

You couldn't force a woman to breastfeed a child, but outside of that, a parent still has obligations to support and care for that child, including feeding it properly.

It does not apply to the use of anything outside your body; like forcing you to pay for your child's food so they don't starve, which is why your argument is nonsense.

What difference does it make? Choosing to give blood or choosing to buy my kid food are practically one and the same. They're both decisions I make, using my mind (part of the body). The literal definition of body autonomy, per the other poster, was anything the feels like coercion against my will.

To be clear, I support abortion - but I don't really see how body autonomy is a good argument against it, especially when the same body autonomy excuses what I've been trying to portray.

[Zaydin]

Democrats just need to start passing bills in states that outright ignore rulings like Citizens United and Heller vs DC and dare the anti-American right to sue them.

And after all the damage the GOP has let Trump do to our system in the name of the partisan pursuit of power, it's only fair we ignore norms in our process of fixing it, like adding four more Democratic justices to the Supreme Court.

[Endus]

What difference does it make? Choosing to give blood or choosing to buy my kid food are practically one and the same. They're both decisions I make, using my mind (part of the body). The literal definition of body autonomy, per the other poster, was anything the feels like coercion against my will.

This has nothing to do with the capacity to choose.

And no, that was not the definition you were provided.

You're just fucking around to derail at this point.

[infinitemeridian]

This has nothing to do with the capacity to choose.

And no, that was not the definition you were provided.

You're just fucking around to derail at this point.

"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."

I need to use my physical body to get the kid food. Personal autonomy is me choosing not to give the food. How is it not?

[Endus]

"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."

I need to use my physical body to get the kid food. Personal autonomy is me choosing not to give the food. How is it not?

Has nothing to do with the inviolability of the physical body.

Do you not understand basic English? You literally just quoted a sentence explaining how completely wrong you are.

This is what I meant by you just fucking around. It's blatant and obvious bullshit.

[Shalcker]

No Ted Crockett, presidents don't have to swear on a bible.

They don't have to, but majority still does.

So if we actually followed our constitution, we would be a secular nation.

Right, and if Russia actually followed constitution it would be perfect democracy.

We aren't in that world.

[Santti]

I will start calling them pro-fetus from now on, they don't give a crap about life once it's out of the womb.

I call them anti-women.

[kail]

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?

...I thought I've seen bad examples before. Bodily autonomy doesn't mean you're free to act as you please, it means your free to do or deny whatever procedures that affect your body.

Blood donation, a tooth filling, sex change, organ donation (even post mortem), or a simple tattoo. You are not forced to undergo any of these and all other medical procedures against your wishes, even if it means your death. If you have cancer, you are free to live with it or get chemo. That power of choice is yours. That's bodily autonomy, the government having no say what is done to your body.

Feeding your kid is not a medical procedure being forced to you. You either feed and care for the kid that you decided to keep or give it up for adoption.