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

[Cthulhu 2020]

It’s the ol’ projection vs actually understanding other’s point of view.

Oh and the bold part is because I tried to reply to it, but it all seemed at least a little like flaming. Don’t feel like removing the bold, even though I kept the flaming to my self.

It's ironic considering Theo has shit on people for getting gender studies degrees. (Hint: Look up employment rates and average wages of history majors vs gender studies majors. You MIGHT be surprised, but then again, you'll probably know exactly what you're gonna find by how I've worded this post.)

- - - Updated - - -

I thought about wading into the discussion with some brief commentary, but then I saw noteworthy figures on Twitter claiming, with no hint of jocularity, that pro-life people simply hate women and would like more of them to die.

So maybe not.

Considering rape abortions, as well as abortions to save the mother's life have been outlawed, it's not even hyperbole to say that those people hate women at this point.

[Kheirn]

Hey, cancer is also a lump of cells with uncontrolled growth, essentially having a "life of it's own".

Let's ban cancer treatment. /s

[s_bushido]

"Yep, they gonna throw them right in the Alabama Slammer for 99 years. Let's see, it's 2019 so by the time those doctors get out of jail in Alabama it will be 1895."
~Stephen Colbert

[Evielution93]

I thought about wading into the discussion with some brief commentary, but then I saw noteworthy figures on Twitter claiming, with no hint of jocularity, that pro-life people simply hate women and would like more of them to die.

So maybe not.

Pro-life people simply hate women. I wouldn't say they nessecarily want more of them to die, but they do want to restrict their voting rights, given felon's cannot vote and having an abortion is now going to be a felony in Alabama, entrap them in situations they're forced further into poverty and apparently don't mind either filling the already overstretched foster system or risking a woman's health and life in order to do it.

Let me ask you this. If this bill was about anything except hatred of women, why put the penalty at 99+ years? What's the point? Is a life term too lenient? Because realistically talking, even if we take the extreme heart tugging example of a teenage girl who, after being raped, was forced to get one due to the emotional stress of carrying her rapists child, let's say she's around 16, that still means that she's in prison until the age of 115. There is zero logic there except to hurt woman, so please, talk me through the conservative talking points which justify the 99+ years.

Edit: see my next post, I will fully admit to misreading the penalty towards women in this law.

[Thirza]

Pro-life people simply hate women. I wouldn't say they nessecarily want more of them to die, but they do want to restrict their voting rights, given felon's cannot vote and having an abortion is now going to be a felony in Alabama, entrap them in situations they're forced further into poverty and apparently don't mind either filling the already overstretched foster system or risking a woman's health and life in order to do it.

Let me ask you this. If this bill was about anything except hatred of women, why put the penalty at 99+ years? What's the point? Is a life term too lenient? Because realistically talking, even if we take the extreme heart tugging example of a teenage girl who, after being raped, was forced to get one due to the emotional stress of carrying her rapists child, let's say she's around 16, that still means that she's in prison until the age of 115. There is zero logic there except to hurt woman, so please, talk me through the conservative talking points which justify the 99+ years.

You are wasting your time. They hate that women have rights and are becoming more prominent contributors to society, they cannot be reasoned with.

[Shalcker]

Let me ask you this. If this bill was about anything except hatred of women, why put the penalty at 99+ years? What's the point? Is a life term too lenient? Because realistically talking, even if we take the extreme heart tugging example of a teenage girl who, after being raped, was forced to get one due to the emotional stress of carrying her rapists child, let's say she's around 16, that still means that she's in prison until the age of 115. There is zero logic there except to hurt woman, so please, talk me through the conservative talking points which justify the 99+ years.

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.

[Evielution93]

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.

You know what, legitimately fair, my bad, think I misread the posts that were coming up. So let's take it to the actual place it would be. Why do they implement a death penalty for this hypothetical girl being forced to carry her rapists baby when she is forced to take a back alley abortion and dies due to complications?

As I said before. When people are desperate, they aren't going to let a little thing like "It's illegal" stop them. This is exactly why Roe vs Wade happened in the first place.

[Shalcker]

You know what, legitimately fair, my bad, think I misread the posts that were coming up. So let's take it to the actual place it would be. Why do they implement a death penalty for this hypothetical girl being forced to carry her rapists baby when she is forced to take a back alley abortion and dies due to complications?

As I said before. When people are desperate, they aren't going to let a little thing like "It's illegal" stop them. This is exactly why Roe vs Wade happened in the first place.

What is desperate about it?

Even in Alabama maternal death rate isn't that high; not sure if adoption is readily available though, it can be more tricky if they are forced to feed and provide for the baby past birth.

[Benggaul]

Eventually it's probably all going to come down to Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts. It's clear that there is going to be a legal battle against this law and rightfully so, and the people who created it in the first place said they HOPE it goes to the SCOTUS because they WANT a new a ruling on Roe v. Wade. I'm sure we can count on all of the Dems to vote against this and equally we can count on Kavanaugh to vote FOR it because he's a Trump shill and you can bet your ass Trump is going to get behind this. Most of the rest of the Republicans on the SCOTUS also vote heavily along party lines. Gorsuch and Roberts seem to be the only two who are willing to vote against their party from time to time. Let's hope this is one of them.

Regardless of what happens it's pretty clear now that the GOP is not the party for women unless you're the self-hating, ultra-religious to the point of insanity type. I'm not going to say that the Dems are better because that's not my choice to make, but when your ownership over your OWN body is being taken away from you it's time to get the hell out of there.

[Evielution93]

What is desperate about it?

Even in Alabama maternal death rate isn't that high; not sure if adoption is readily available though, it can be more tricky if they are forced to feed and provide for the baby past birth.

"Maternal death rate" isn't the issue here. I mean, it is PART of the issue, because in anything where the chance of death is greater than 0 they should not be forced to go through it, but there is so much more to consider.

The social pressure. Okay, let's be clear here, there are prejudices against women who get pregnant out of wedlock. When you have idiots in power who use words like "Legitimate rape", there's a social thing which makes it the woman's fault. Even on this very topic, we have people going "Well they should have used protection", ignoring aspects such as protection failing, or rapists not exactly caring about whether they impregnate their victim or not.

There's aspects such as their livelihood. Work places do not like having women who get pregnant. And while they can't fire them just for being pregnant, they can make all sorts of issues like changing work schedules to times that are unworkable, passing them up for training or promotions, or any number of things which aren't legal but people don't know aren't legal and thus don't know how to fight. And sure, this doesn't exactly apply to above self-admitted example meant to tug on heart strings to get the emotional appeal [although I'm almost certain there are examples of teens in work who get pregnant getting discriminated against], it is still an example of how pregnancies are life changing and can make life hell for the woman involved.

How about the case of Gerri Santoro? Left her husband due to him being violent, had an affair with another man and got pregnant, and when her husband announced he was coming to visit her and their children, panicked due to fear for her life and set out with her lover to abort the child and ended up hemmoraging and dead. This one was linked in this very thread.

And as for the "Just put them up for adoption" option, yeaaahhh no. As someone who's best friend went through the foster system, no child should be put into that except under extreme cases.

https://theconversation.com/the-hidd...e-system-49700

[Mayhem]

This is like saying, outlawing murders won't stop murders, it will just make more messy ones.

Murder is outlawed and they still happen.

If murder was regulated it wouldn't be messy. That is correct. You can see it in the death penalty which isn't some guy randomly shooting at a target or slashing someone up until they bleed to death.

So you just countered your own point, to no ones surprise.

[Shalcker]

"Maternal death rate" isn't the issue here. I mean, it is PART of the issue, because in anything where the chance of death is greater than 0 they should not be forced to go through it, but there is so much more to consider.
-snip-

All very real problems, i agree. Problems that majority of women who do not go for abortion also face. They all should be resolved, absolutely.

But those using abortion are minority (out of all who get pregnant), and abortion is pretty bad solution to those problems overall.

And as for the "Just put them up for adoption" option, yeaaahhh no. As someone who's best friend went through the foster system, no child should be put into that except under extreme cases.
https://theconversation.com/the-hidd...e-system-49700

I agree that in no country foster system is better then real parents, but the alternative, from conservative perspective, is losing child life altogether.

[Endus]

I agree that in no country foster system is better then real parents, but the alternative, from conservative perspective, is losing child life altogether.

And this perspective is an entirely religious-based perspective that has no merit or meaning whatsoever when it comes to the law in a developed, secular nation, like the USA.

"I can't do that because of my religion" is fine. If you don't want an abortion for religious reasons, no one will force you to have one.

"You can't do that because of my religion" is theocratic tyranny. You can take everything rooted in that concept, fold it up until it's all sharp corners, and then cram it all the way up your butt. These arguments deserve nothing but derision, mockery, abuse, and marginalization for any and all who profess it. And pro-life is, wholly and completely, this class of utter bullshit.

[Shalcker]

And this perspective is an entirely religious-based perspective that has no merit or meaning whatsoever when it comes to the law in a developed, secular nation, like the USA.

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

"I can't do that because of my religion" is fine. If you don't want an abortion for religious reasons, no one will force you to have one.

"You can't do that because of my religion" is theocratic tyranny. You can take everything rooted in that concept, fold it up until it's all sharp corners, and then cram it all the way up your butt. These arguments deserve nothing but derision, mockery, abuse, and marginalization for any and all who profess it. And pro-life is, wholly and completely, this class of utter bullshit.

It is more of "we think human life starts from conception, and human life is sacred" (due to religious views) vs "we think human life starts from birth, and human life is sacred", not necessarily "you can't do that because my religion says so", but because boundary condition for shared value is different between religious and non-religious people.

And if religious people get better political representation for whatever reason, they can use their boundary conditions for legislation.

[Paranoid Android]

Alabama governor invokes God in banning nearly all abortions
https://t.co/BgoODnUb75

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/stat...622687744?s=19

Sharia Law everyone!

I never understand why the pro-choice defense never uses 1st Amendment protection or at least forcing religion onto others.

[Endus]

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

Doesn't make the nation not secular. Seriously, I should not have to explain basic English words.

[quote]It is more of "we think human life starts from conception, and human life is sacred" (due to religious views) vs "we think human life starts from birth, and human life is sacred", not necessarily "you can't do that because my religion says so", but because boundary condition for shared value is different between religious and non-religious people.[/qyuote]

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.

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.

[Belize]

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/stat...622687744?s=19

Sharia Law everyone!

I never understand why the pro-choice defense never uses 1st Amendment protection or at least forcing religion onto others.

Someone needs to fill a couple commercial airplanes with leaflets that only have the 1st Amendment written on it, and drop them all on the Alabama governor/senators.

They'll either get the message or be buried by it, either way it's a win-win for the population of the state.

[Blade Wolf]

Oh please, cut the crap. 'Pro-lifers' aren't pro-life. You're pro-Forced Birth. You're pro 'Make women brood mares for the state'. You're 'Pro-Women have no rights and should make babies and stay at home'.

Then after the child is born, it can fuck off for all they care since the kid needs to pull itself up by it's bootstraps.

[s_bushido]

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/stat...622687744?s=19

Sharia Law everyone!

She probably forgot that the bible commands women to stay silent and subservient to men.

I never understand why the pro-choice defense never uses 1st Amendment protection or at least forcing religion onto others.

Republicans couldn't care less about the Constitution. In addition to them thinking that "religious freedom" means no more or less than "the freedom to practice our version of Christianity." So it would be pointless either way.

[Captain N]

Someone needs to fill a couple commercial airplanes with leaflets that only have the 1st Amendment written on it, and drop them all on the Alabama governor/senators.

They'll either get the message or be buried by it, either way it's a win-win for the population of the state.

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!