Anti-abortion bill in Alabama


Phineas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

first, because we love adoption;

Actually, as someone who was adopted, I can tell you that some "conservatives" have a problem with it. Especially religious ones. Going to a public school, no one cared about my sister or I being adopted. No one even mentioned it. The first time someone said something negative about it was in 6th grade. When I went to Catholic school, and someone called my sister and I a rude name for a baby born "out of wedlock". I didn't even know what the word meant until then. 

Now, having said that, I agree with you @Just_A_Guy. Conservatives do love adoption, especially in 2019. But it was different, even in the early 90's. I've also been told by other adopted people that some (key word, some) religious people still view adoption as "not ideal" or "lesser" than a biological child. So saying pro-lifers "love adoption" might be slightly overstating it. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Actually, as someone who was adopted, I can tell you that some "conservatives" have a problem with it. Especially religious ones. Going to a public school, no one cared about my sister or I being adopted. No one even mentioned it. The first time someone said something negative about it was in 6th grade. When I went to Catholic school, and someone called my sister and I a rude name for a baby born "out of wedlock". I didn't even know what the word meant until then. 

Now, having said that, I agree with you @Just_A_Guy. Conservatives do love adoption, especially in 2019. But it was different, even in the early 90's. I've also been told by other adopted people that some (key word, some) religious people still view adoption as "not ideal" or "lesser" than a biological child. So saying pro-lifers "love adoption" might be slightly overstating it. 

Well, those weren’t “true” conservatives.  Or Scotsmen. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, those weren’t “true” conservatives.  Or Scotsmen. ;) 

Don't make me bring up The Black Album by Metallica again! 

Some people get worked up over abortion, I get worked up over heavy metal albums. I have serious problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Don't make me bring up The Black Album by Metallica again! 

Some people get worked up over abortion, I get worked up over heavy metal albums. I have serious problems. 

Yes, yes, we know. Enter Sandman is the greatest metal song of all time and it's not even close. We've heard you gush about it countless times. 🙄

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Godless said:

Yes, yes, we know. Enter Sandman is the greatest metal song of all time and it's not even close. We've heard you gush about it countless times. 🙄

MG's very favorite Metallica album, with a place of honor right next to his Twisted Sister collection. If only Sammy Hagar had taken James Hetfield's place...

Fun fact: James Hetfield is seven months younger than I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read far into the thread, but the thrust of the law isn't actually the law itself.  It is focused on the REASONS why Roe vs. Wade (or some of it) was given in it's majority opinion and what seemed to sway the justices at the time.

Roe vs. Wade was NOT about women's rights per se, or a woman's freedom to choose to have an abortion, rather it was about a DOCTOR's ability to treat their patient.  In this, the cases of rape, incest, and other factors that may involve the mental health, aptitude and ability of the patient are also concerns in regards to the overall health of the patient.  Thus, cases for abortion were not merely due to the physical health factors of the patient, but also the mental aspects. 

Alabama has basically tried to close the loophole of the mental health arena, so that a ruling regarding instances of rape and such factors will instead become a legal ruling on that basis of law, rather than one where it is dependent on the Doctor's ability to choose and decide.

The Law itself is not to actually be strictly enforced as law, or rather, that is not it's purpose.  It's purpose is to force a case where it goes up to the Supreme Court whilst the Court seems to have a Conservative majority in an attempt to either weaken Roe Vs. Wade or overturn it entirely.

At least that's my take on what has occurred (and several other states that are also wanting to pursue a similar issue or idea to the Supreme court while it is seen as conservative).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I haven't read far into the thread, but the thrust of the law isn't actually the law itself.  It is focused on the REASONS why Roe vs. Wade (or some of it) was given in it's majority opinion and what seemed to sway the justices at the time.

Roe vs. Wade was NOT about women's rights per se, or a woman's freedom to choose to have an abortion, rather it was about a DOCTOR's ability to treat their patient.  In this, the cases of rape, incest, and other factors that may involve the mental health, aptitude and ability of the patient are also concerns in regards to the overall health of the patient.  Thus, cases for abortion were not merely due to the physical health factors of the patient, but also the mental aspects. 

Alabama has basically tried to close the loophole of the mental health arena, so that a ruling regarding instances of rape and such factors will instead become a legal ruling on that basis of law, rather than one where it is dependent on the Doctor's ability to choose and decide.

The Law itself is not to actually be strictly enforced as law, or rather, that is not it's purpose.  It's purpose is to force a case where it goes up to the Supreme Court whilst the Court seems to have a Conservative majority in an attempt to either weaken Roe Vs. Wade or overturn it entirely.

At least that's my take on what has occurred (and several other states that are also wanting to pursue a similar issue or idea to the Supreme court while it is seen as conservative).

Yes.

The abortion bills currently being passed in State Constitutions are designed to challenge the Federal Law.  There is really nothing the States can do about abortion because the Federal trumps State law, so the main thrust currently is for a Pro-Choice outfit to challenge the State law so it can go up to the Supreme Court and hopefully overturn or supercede Roe v Wade and bring the power for legislation of abortion back to the States.  This is where States can properly legislate exactly what they want the legislation to be instead of designing it to be a direct challenge to the SCOTUS ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
21 hours ago, Mores said:

Then the entire semester is about contraception, orgasms, human sexuality, sexual positions, sexual orientation... the list goes on.

Really?  Which school is this?   

Many schools (including the ones our kids go to) have the cirriculum avialable online so you can read it.   I don't see any online that cover things like sexual positions.

I'm not saying that such classes don't exist, but which school are you referring to?

Also, sex education (as far as I know) is never an entire semester.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

On fire tonight @Vort

Shameful admission: I still like "Enter Sandman" and The Black Album. That song was my first real exposure to Metallica, when I was nearly 30. In much the same way, as a teenager I liked "Dance the Night Away" and Van Halen II, my first real exposure to Van Halen and so-called hard rock (some would say "glam metal") in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Shameful admission: I still like "Enter Sandman" and The Black Album. That song was my first real exposure to Metallica, when I was nearly 30. In much the same way, as a teenager I liked "Dance the Night Away" and Van Halen II, my first real exposure to Van Halen and so-called hard rock (some would say "glam metal") in general.

The day I praise "Enter Sandman" is the day that @Godless and @LiterateParakeet wear Make America Great Again hats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 2:44 PM, BeccaKirstyn said:

I have a hard time with this new law. I unfortunately view it in the same context as those who want to ban all weapons. Such a ban would not get rid of the use of weapons....just the legal ways to obtain them. Such is the same with this abortion ban. Banning abortion in the state of Alabama does not get rid of abortion in that state...just the legal (and safe) ways of doing so. 

I am all about agency. To choose for oneself of how you want to live your life. Do I want to protect the life of a fetus? Absolutely, I do. But, if my friend, who chooses to have an abortion, doesn't feel the same, who am I (or who is the government) to tell her what to do? To get in the way of her agency. 

I don't know. This has always been a very sticky and difficult issue that I have gone back and forth on for many years. But this law just does not feel right to me. 

Maybe if you look at it from another perspective...

But, first off, this needs to be clarified:  The law does not address mothers.  It only addresses doctors.  So the government is not “telling mothers” it’s “telling doctors”.

So, here’s the different perspective:

We have a ban on homicide.  Not all killing rises to the crime of homicide.  For example, a woman killed a man that was trying to rape her.  A driver killed a person who ran across a dark highway in black clothing.  A doctor killed a patient by removing life support because of the family’s wishes.  Etc etc.

All these justifiable cases of killings does not make anybody desire to lift the ban on homicide.  But the killings remain justified such that It doesn’t even trigger an arrest or a day in court.

Of course, all these cases run off of the basic foundational assumption that it was a PERSON, with inalienable right to life, that got killed.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Maybe if you look at it from another perspective...

But, first off, this needs to be clarified:  The law does not address mothers.  It only addresses doctors.  So the government is not “telling mothers” it’s “telling doctors”.

So, here’s the different perspective:

We have a ban on homicide.  Not all killing rises to the crime of homicide.  For example, a woman killed a man that was trying to rape her.  A driver killed a person who ran across a dark highway in black clothing.  A doctor killed a patient by removing life support because of the family’s wishes.  Etc etc.

All these justifiable cases of killings does not make anybody desire to lift the ban on homicide.  But the killings remain justified such that It doesn’t even trigger an arrest or a day in court.

Of course, all these cases run off of the basic foundational assumption that it was a PERSON, with inalienable right to life, that got killed.

Yeah doesn't really change how disgusted I feel when I think about the women in Alabama who are raped who can no longer receive an abortion if they do not want to carry the child of a rapist. 

Morally do I support aborting children? No. Morally do I support women having the option to choose to do so? Yes. So just because the law doesn't "directly" address mothers doesn't make them feel any less powerful in this situation now. They have no legal means to choose to abort a child that is the product of rape. 

Edited by BeccaKirstyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Yeah doesn't really change how disgusted I feel when I think about the women in Alabama who are raped who can no longer receive an abortion if they do not want to carry the child of a rapist. 

Morally do I support aborting children? No. Morally do I support women having the option to choose to do so? Yes. So just because the law doesn't "directly" address mothers doesn't make them feel any less powerful in this situation now. They have no legal means to choose to abort a child that is the product of rape. 

Roe v Wade is not overturned yet.

Alabama, et al., passed the most stringent anti-abortion bills they can get through their State Congress EXACTLY for the purpose of forcing a court challenge so it goes to the SCOTUS.

This is only stage 1.  We are VERY FAR from actual anti-abortion law being legislated in the States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

F855CCA1-A1C4-4022-9E3A-19CF0E6C85B9.thumb.jpeg.fb583fb9bd4815273a8b707aff3cd661.jpeg

The obvious flaw in this statement is that the mothers of these children made a choice. They were wanted, which is why they're here. A friend of mine was raped and chose to have her rapist's baby. She had been wanting a baby and refused to let what happened to her change that. He's three now and absolutely adorable. She's also very much pro-choice, because she respects the right of other women to choose their own path when their bodies are violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

The obvious flaw in this statement is that the mothers of these children made a choice. They were wanted, which is why they're here. A friend of mine was raped and chose to have her rapist's baby. She had been wanting a baby and refused to let what happened to her change that. He's three now and absolutely adorable. She's also very much pro-choice, because she respects the right of other women to choose their own path when their bodies are violated.

Yes and no.  What the argument boils down to, is that an unplanned/disabled human being has no intrinsic worth, except as may be imputed to it by a more powerful human being.  “The unborn man is a being of an inferior order, with no rights that a born man is bound to respect”, as Justice Taney would have put it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share