Alabama pro-life Senator only thinks the egg is a person if it's in a woman

[Mormolyce]

Alabama’s Abortion Bill Is Immoral, Inhumane, and Wildly Inconsistent
The measure passed by Alabama’s Senate on Tuesday is just one more link on a world-spanning chain of misogyny that punishes all women and girls.

On Tuesday night, the Alabama Senate voted to outlaw nearly all abortions in the state, with no exception for rape or incest. If the governor signs the bill into law, as expected, it would likely pose a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. De-facto abortion bans have taken hold in multiple states in recent months, but this particularly aggressive and particularly cruel measure gives a clear preview of what the anti-abortion movement wreaks: a nation in which even little girls who are raped are forced to have babies.

In response, women (and a lot of men) around the country are gearing up for a fight. On social media, women are sharing their abortion stories with the hashtag #YouKnowMe—that is, in a nation where nearly one in four women have ended a pregnancy, everyone knows someone who has had an abortion. Many of the women tweeting #YouKnowMe had abortions for the most common of reasons: they were pregnant when they didn’t want to be, and couldn’t afford a child; or didn’t want a child at that moment; or didn’t want a child with the person who impregnated them. Others found wanted pregnancies were tragically doomed. And still others were pregnant from rape.

Around the world, and even in many restrictive U.S. states, abortions are allowed for women seeking to protect their health or lives, or for rape and incest victims. Brazil, Benin, Sudan, and South Korea, among many others, outlaw abortion, but allow rape victims to end their pregnancies. Even many of the most “pro-life” places recognize that there is a particular cruelty in forcing a rape or incest victim to bear an attacker’s child.

But rape and incest exceptions are vexing things for the anti-abortion movement. For those who would allow them, exceptions reveal a paradox that it’s O.K. to have an abortion if getting pregnant wasn’t your “fault”—and that forced pregnancy is a punishment for women who have sex for the fun of it. That’s pretty inconsistent with the claim that outlawing abortion is about preserving “life.”

One of the lead architects of the Alabama bill made this view even more plain when he stated that the measure, which purports to protect fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses, would not actually apply to all embryos. After all, if you argue that life begins at conception, that’s a big problem for I.V.F. In the name of protecting “life,” anti-abortion legislators could functionally outlaw fertility treatments that involve fertilizing eggs and selecting the strongest embryos for implantation. But don’t worry, said Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

In other words, it’s not about the life of a fertilized egg at all. It’s about controlling women.

And rape victims, more often than not, are women—and girls. Anti-abortion groups claim, without irony, that, when it comes to a pregnant rape victim, “the woman’s problem is not that she’s pregnant.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...y-inconsistent

So basically, he's conceded that he is not interested in whether the embryo is a "person" and therefore sacrosanct to the pro-life movement, because they aren't inside a woman. Pretty much a naked statement that this has nothing to do with the embryo at all, and that their only interest is in control of a woman's body.

[Has lost its way]

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/201...y-inconsistent

So basically, he's conceded that he is not interested in whether the embryo is a "person" and therefore sacrosanct to the pro-life movement, because they aren't inside a woman. Pretty much a naked statement that this has nothing to do with the embryo at all, and that their only interest is in control of a woman's body.

The argument you think is being presented isn't the argument you are refuting.

[Mormolyce]

The argument you think is being presented isn't the argument you are refuting.

This is basically the argumentative equivalent of "nuh uh" lol.

[Dethxx]

This is basically the argumentative equivalent of "nuh uh" lol.

So a typical leftist argument.

[Galathir]

On social media, women are sharing their abortion stories with the hashtag #YouKnowMe—that is, in a nation where nearly one in four women have ended a pregnancy, everyone knows someone who has had an abortion.

Wait what? I'm pro choice but this is an alarming statistic that I haven't seen before.
Maybe instead of arguing about abortion someone should teach them about contraception first.

[Techno-Druid]

Abortion is a tough topic and I agree and disagree with a both pro-choice and pro-life arguments, although I learn more towards the former. Having grown up around women who became pregnant way too early with their offspring suffering from it, usually poverty and abuse from women more eager to just slap the shit of their kid than actually try and work with them to get them to behave. Both in urban and rural areas (rural areas are arguably worse, anecdotally).

I believe late term abortion should be banned under normal circumstances though.

[Halyon]

Wait what? I'm pro choice but this is an alarming statistic that I haven't seen before.
Maybe instead of arguing about abortion someone should teach them about contraception first.

Din'tcha know? It's abstinance only ed ya slut! Not even a joke in some states, and the rest are lacking as well.

So glad I'm european. We still have rights left.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is a tough topic and I agree and disagree with a both pro-choice and pro-life arguments, although I learn more towards the former. Having grown up around women who became pregnant way too early with their offspring suffering from it, usually poverty and abuse from women more eager to just slap the shit of their kid than actually try and work with them to get them to behave. Both in urban and rural areas (rural areas are arguably worse, anecdotally).

I believe late term abortion should be banned under normal circumstances though.

It is though, wtf. Most places, Canada being one of very few exceptions, wtf Canada, do not allow elective late term abortions, as it should be, unless it's on the grounds of medical emergencies. Otherwise I think the highest I've seen from the US is 24 weeks. Which is pretty high if you ask me.

Where I live the max is 16 weeks, while some conservative twats have tried to lower it to 12.

[Kumorii]

Abortion is a tough topic and I agree and disagree with a both pro-choice and pro-life arguments, although I learn more towards the former. Having grown up around women who became pregnant way too early with their offspring suffering from it, usually poverty and abuse from women more eager to just slap the shit of their kid than actually try and work with them to get them to behave. Both in urban and rural areas (rural areas are arguably worse, anecdotally).

I believe late term abortion should be banned under normal circumstances though.

The weird part is that neither side will ever convince the other because they have different values. While both sides try to argue their side is the one being rational they use the premise they support to justify such a rationale. Pro choice argues women's rights, while pro life argue the babies rights. And they put one above the other but try to argue that the other should do the same based on their own values rather than the person they try convince values.

[Galathir]

Din'tcha know? It's abstinance only ed ya slut! Not even a joke in some states, and the rest are lacking as well.

I'm aware of that but we live in the age of the internet. Every 10 year old has access to all the porn in the world. And when they know where to stick it they should be expected to know about the possible consequences, too.

[Techno-Druid]

Late term abortions are banned pretty much everywhere unless it's a medical emergency.

Yeah, I was just stating it to avoid being accused of being a baby murderer by a certain group of posters.

[Halyon]

I'm aware of that but we live in the age of the internet. Every 10 year old has access to all the porn in the world. And when they know where to stick it they should be expected to know about the possible consequences, too.

Yeah, not all people have internet because they can't afford it, and young people don't all have wherewithall to mistrust stuff they're being indoctrinated into, or how to correctly look for it. Putting the burden on teens who already have enough shit to worry about is irresponsible as fuck.

[Pannonian]

Wait what? I'm pro choice but this is an alarming statistic that I haven't seen before.
Maybe instead of arguing about abortion someone should teach them about contraception first.

Yes, if you have no idea, it sounds bad. The thing is, we don't talk about it, because it is still a taboo.

Both of my sisters had an abortion procedure. Both of them because the fetus died inside them in the third or fourth month. They wanted these babies, but couldn't carry them to term, and instead of waiting for the fetus to exit by themselves (which could kill them), they had this procedure.

This has nothing to do with contraception, but rather that a lot of pregnancies end with a misscarriage or a fetus who cannot sruvie and just dies. It happens way more often than people think.

I was also shocked when i heard it the first time, but there are a lot of pregnancies that cannot survive, and the medical operation is basically an abortion.

[Galathir]

Yes, if you have no idea, it sounds bad. The thing is, we don't talk about it, because it is still a taboo.

Both of my sisters had an abortion procedure. Both of them because the fetus died inside them in the third or fourth month. They wanted these babies, but couldn't carry them to term, and instead of waiting for the fetus to exit by themselves (which could kill them), they had this procedure.

This has nothing to do with contraception, but rather that a lot of pregnancies end with a misscarriage or a fetus who cannot sruvie and just dies. It happens way more often than people think.

I was also shocked when i heard it the first time, but there are a lot of pregnancies that cannot survive, and the medical operation is basically an abortion.

Yeah okay, I admit I didn't think about miscarriages (even though a coworker of mine had one as well). There are a lot of those unfortunately.

It is hard to know how many miscarriages take place because sometimes a miscarriage can happen before the mother knows she is pregnant. The estimated figure is that miscarriage happens in around 1 in 4 recognised pregnancies, with 85% of those happening in the first trimester (weeks 1 to 12).

source: https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-inf...on-miscarriage

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The weird part is that neither side will ever convince the other because they have different values. While both sides try to argue their side is the one being rational they use the premise they support to justify such a rationale. Pro choice argues women's rights, while pro life argue the babies rights. And they put one above the other but try to argue that the other should do the same based on their own values rather than the person they try convince values.

But one of these sides is clearly logically superior... that of womens rights. A pro-life person is free to avoid abortion, and shouldn't have a say in what I, or others do with my bodies. "God said" isn't a reason. "I don't like it" isn't a reason.

[Kumorii]

But one of these sides is clearly logically superior... that of womens rights. A pro-life person is free to avoid abortion, and shouldn't have a say in what I, or others do with my bodies. "God said" isn't a reason. "I don't like it" isn't a reason.

Right, that's what both sides thinks. One values life, one values women's rights. They aren't arguing about women's bodies, they are arguing for the babies life. Thanks for proving my point though, by saying hey it's my body you shouldn't decide about it, while ignoring the actual stance which is the babies life which you don't even adress.

You are simply valuing women's rights of their bodies above the value of the babies life

They value opposite. Neither value is "logically" superior since it's simply subjective values.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Right, that's what both sides thinks. One values life, one values women's rights. They aren't arguing about women's bodies, they are arguing for the babies life. Thanks for proving my point though, by saying hey it's my body you shouldn't decide about it, while ignoring the actual stance which is the babies life which you don't even adress.

In most abortion cases, the babies don't have a life. Its a clump of cells. no memories, not self-aware. The fetus would be the size of an apple/papaya. The baby doesn't have a life, or even really a potential life because it cannot live outside the womb until the middle of the pregnancy, ... 85% at 26-28 weeks.

I don't even need to address it, because even if you wanted to take the completely ignorant route of fetus personhood, that fetus isn't more important than my life, or anyone elses. You cannot force me to give blood or an organ to save someone else. How is this different? You cannot force someone to become pregnant.

The whole argument is stupid, because once you show them that fetuses aren't people, then they spew out some bullshit about "potential of life..." and then you hit them with the "well, sperm is a living, single cell organism. Is it a crime to masturbate? I'm killing (potential) babies, aren't I?"

Its not about being pro-life. If it was, then we would be spending more money on education, welfare programs, adoption programs, helping single mothers become more successful, ensuring that children are properly being educated for their futures, ensuring people aren't starving to death, ensuring people have access to healthcare. When you bring up any of these points, suddenly republicans don't care. Suddenly, its "their bad choices..." "they should work harder, pull yourself by the bootsraps.." Its about control, purely. Thats why a 14 year old girl can't adopt a child, hell, single adults normally can't, and even worse, many couples that can't afford the huge fees and costs are denied. But yeah, we sure will FORCE a fucking 14 year old RAPED CHILD to go through with the pregnancy, because "life is sacred..." If we care about life so much, we should be helping mothers more, giving them money at conception (since you know, thats where "life" begins) and then paying them to care for their babies.

Its purely control, because if it weren't we wouldn't get headlines like:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b4bccbbe323f

GOP congressman repeatedly pushed antiabortion view days after reportedly urging mistress to get abortion

Its not about life. And pretending to see the merit of both sides is fucking bullshit. Take a side and stop pretending to be morally superior. being neutral isn't a virtue, its ignorant and cowardly.

[Kumorii]

In most abortion cases, the babies don't have a life. Its a clump of cells. no memories, not self-aware. The fetus would be the size of an apple/papaya. The baby doesn't have a life, or even really a potential life because it cannot live outside the womb until the middle of the pregnancy, ... 85% at 26-28 weeks.

I don't even need to address it, because even if you wanted to take the completely ignorant route of fetus personhood, that fetus isn't more important than my life, or anyone elses. You cannot force me to give blood or an organ to save someone else. How is this different? You cannot force someone to become pregnant.

The whole argument is stupid, because once you show them that fetuses aren't people, then they spew out some bullshit about "potential of life..." and then you hit them with the "well, sperm is a living, single cell organism. Is it a crime to masturbate? I'm killing (potential) babies, aren't I?"

Its not about being pro-life. If it was, then we would be spending more money on education, welfare programs, adoption programs, helping single mothers become more successful, ensuring that children are properly being educated for their futures, ensuring people aren't starving to death, ensuring people have access to healthcare. When you bring up any of these points, suddenly republicans don't care. Suddenly, its "their bad choices..." "they should work harder, pull yourself by the bootsraps.." Its about control, purely. Thats why a 14 year old girl can't adopt a child, hell, single adults normally can't, and even worse, many couples that can't afford the huge fees and costs are denied. But yeah, we sure will FORCE a fucking 14 year old RAPED CHILD to go through with the pregnancy, because "life is sacred..." If we care about life so much, we should be helping mothers more, giving them money at conception (since you know, thats where "life" begins) and then paying them to care for their babies.

Its purely control, because if it weren't we wouldn't get headlines like:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b4bccbbe323f



Its not about life. And pretending to see the merit of both sides is fucking bullshit. Take a side and stop pretending to be morally superior. being neutral isn't a virtue, its ignorant and cowardly.

All you are arguing for is why you value it less. Doesn't change the fact that they value it more than you do and even more than women's rights ti treor body.

You do make a false equivalency though since it's not about forcing people to become pregnant. Just that they aren't allowed to terminate life. Which they are pretty clear, at least majority I've heard srguments from, is during conception. Aka when sperm fertilize an egg. Not when women have period or when men ejaculate trough masturbation.

You are literally an example of what I mentioned in my first post. You use your values as baseline and use your rationale to say someone else have their values wrong. Even though it's a subjective matter.

Also, I have a side. Why do you assume I do not? I just value seeing and understanding my oppositions arguments and you trying to tell me that trying to understand is a negative thing is just flat out retarded. I will never be willfully ignorant by refusing to try and see others perspectives on any matter. By doing so I also showed my concern that this will never really be resolved just because people value different things.

If you think that makes me appear to pretend to be superior idc. It is just you admitting that you refuse to do so and that's the only conclusion you can draw from it.

[Independent voter]

Everyone picks an age at when life starts. It might be at the moment of conception or it might be when the child is born. I've heard there are places in this world where you aren't considered a viable human until you're 1 year old.

Most of these anti abortion laws say that life doesn't start until the fetus has a heart beat. Back in the old days they wanted an outright ban so this is an improvement.

Me personally, I don't have a problem with abortions during the first 3 months. Later if the doctors say the child will be born with severe defects.

[Raelbo]

The weird part is that neither side will ever convince the other because they have different values. While both sides try to argue their side is the one being rational they use the premise they support to justify such a rationale. Pro choice argues women's rights, while pro life argue the babies rights. And they put one above the other but try to argue that the other should do the same based on their own values rather than the person they try convince values.

I agree with your opening statement that "neither side will ever convince the other because they have different values". And while I agree that both sides would like to present their argument as being rational, there are objectively irrational arguments being made (mostly) by the pro-life camp.

The problem here is that pro-lifers (mostly) don't understand the irrationality of assuming that their values are, or should be universal. One of the foundations of a civilised society is that we do have an agreed upon set of universal values. But individual values do not need to be constrained by universal values provided they don't run contrary to those universal values (ie it's possible for the individual to hold a higher set of values that supercede the universal set of values).

Women's rights are universal. Babies rights are universal. Early term Foetus rights are, however, subjective - and in the case of pro-lifers, the values used to try and determine what those rights should be are based purely on religious views and/or personal feelings.

It's shocking that in any first world country any religious beliefs are allowed to be enforced on others. And that is fundamentally what this is about. As you correctly point out, the pro-life camp argues the rights of the baby. The obvious fallacy in their argument is in defining a foetus as a baby. They are not the same thing, and the only argument that does equate them is the religious one.

A foetus becomes a baby. The time at which that happens is up for debate, but even then, there is reasonable time window to which the debate should be constrained - eg it is unreasonable to argue that a foetus of less than 12 weeks is a baby, while it is equally unreasonable to argue that a foetus of greater than 24 weeks is not a baby.

This Alabama bill is just insane and it pisses on the rights of women the state over. If someone wants to be pro-life, that is their right, and they are welcome to stick to that value when it comes to their own early term foetuses. That right does not extend to allowing them to dictate those values onto other people who do not share those values.

For what it's worth, I regard myself as both pro-life and pro-choice. In other words, I don't personally believe that abortion is ok (unless for medical reasons) even at a very early term. And I totally apply that standard to myself (being a man though, it's a pretty moot point). However, being pro-choice, I recognise that I fundamentally have no right to enforce that view on anyone else, including my own wife.

PS: Please note that this little rant isn't directed at you. I just thought that your argument was a good starting point that I wanted to expand upon

- - - Updated - - -

I'm aware of that but we live in the age of the internet. Every 10 year old has access to all the porn in the world. And when they know where to stick it they should be expected to know about the possible consequences, too.

Knowing about the possible consequences and understanding those consequences are two completely different things. A 10 year should be taught the former (and it's not their fault if they aren't), but they cannot be expected to adhere to the latter.

[Kumorii]

I agree with your opening statement that "neither side will ever convince the other because they have different values". And while I agree that both sides would like to present their argument as being rational, there are objectively irrational arguments being made (mostly) by the pro-life camp.

The problem here is that pro-lifers (mostly) don't understand the irrationality of assuming that their values are, or should be universal. One of the foundations of a civilised society is that we do have an agreed upon set of universal values. But individual values do not need to be constrained by universal values provided they don't run contrary to those universal values (ie it's possible for the individual to hold a higher set of values that supercede the universal set of values).

Women's rights are universal. Babies rights are universal. Early term Foetus rights are, however, subjective - and in the case of pro-lifers, the values used to try and determine what those rights should be are based purely on religious views and/or personal feelings.

It's shocking that in any first world country any religious beliefs are allowed to be enforced on others. And that is fundamentally what this is about. As you correctly point out, the pro-life camp argues the rights of the baby. The obvious fallacy in their argument is in defining a foetus as a baby. They are not the same thing, and the only argument that does equate them is the religious one.

A foetus becomes a baby. The time at which that happens is up for debate, but even then, there is reasonable time window to which the debate should be constrained - eg it is unreasonable to argue that a foetus of less than 12 weeks is a baby, while it is equally unreasonable to argue that a foetus of greater than 24 weeks is not a baby.

This Alabama bill is just insane and it pisses on the rights of women the state over. If someone wants to be pro-life, that is their right, and they are welcome to stick to that value when it comes to their own early term foetuses. That right does not extend to allowing them to dictate those values onto other people who do not share those values.

For what it's worth, I regard myself as both pro-life and pro-choice. In other words, I don't personally believe that abortion is ok (unless for medical reasons) even at a very early term. And I totally apply that standard to myself (being a man though, it's a pretty moot point). However, being pro-choice, I recognise that I fundamentally have no right to enforce that view on anyone else, including my own wife.

PS: Please note that this little rant isn't directed at you. I just thought that your argument was a good starting point that I wanted to expand upon

Thank you for understanding my point and the issue with the entire debate. I agree with most of you said. I am in pro choice camp, simply because I don't really value fetuses and think they have value only for the parties actually involved in creating it. If they don't value it they can do as they wish.
It might sound cold, but meh...I can't really say it changes how I feel about "future babies".

I am however not ignorant in that some do see intrinsic value by life itself and its not wrong objectively to have it. I would say that actually having that view makes them have better morals than myself.

I also agree that arguments from pro-life tends to be shifting. In my experience so does arguments from pro choice. Ask anyone why it doesn't count as a person and they will have a hard time to actually answer it without causing issues when it comes to other human life in other conditions.