- Thread starter
- #61
John Oliver already has sadly that segment, from Sunday's show, isn't available yet on Youtube.
There are tax breaks for the wealthy connected to this ruling.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Alabama - Women's rights
- Thread starter Stat Brother
- Start date
John Oliver already has sadly that segment, from Sunday's show, isn't available yet on Youtube.
There are tax breaks for the wealthy connected to this ruling.
Molango's visa
Molango's visa
So you think this is the fault of women?
The answer is the same as the answer to the question "why don't moderate labour supporters, supposing they are unhappy with their momentum-supporting elected representatives, vote some moderates into office?". The anser is women/moderates/whatever need to get on the ballot paper first. How many of the red neck good ole boy local parties in sweet home Alabama are likely to back a female (or black) person seeking to stand to be their representative for election? How many moderate labour people are likely to be selected by increasing numbers of local parties hell bent on purging the Blairite 'traitors'?
Blaming the victims is rarely a good look
Molango's visa
Molango's visa
That won't help if you are pregnant because your father or brother raped you. If you have been, Alabama will now force you to carry the child to term. Praise the lord.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
You can flip that round the other way, for me at least. Why am I pro-choice (ie abortion) yet anti-death penalty? I'm not claiming rationality here, nor dismissing them as anti-rational.
Yes, you can. And, like you, I do.
These type of threads always highlight a direct correlation between right wing posters, brexit supporters, islamophobes, and now it seems so called “pro-lifers”.
Not forgetting those located in that well known paradise of tolerance and forward thinking, Australia. Where everyone is looking forward to the 1970’s.
Not forgetting those located in that well known paradise of tolerance and forward thinking, Australia. Where everyone is looking forward to the 1970’s.
And if that’s gonna happen anywhere....
The_Viper
Well-known member
Fully pro choice on this one, but the fact that its being used as a form of contraception these days is getting worrisome IMO. If we're going to continue to provide abortions (as we should) those choosing to do so should be required to enter counselling, and discuss your birth control, and your mental state given the decision you have just made. Not only will it encourage you to really invest in actual contraception but it'll help those people who actually need it.
But the entire governmental system on children in general is in need of a massive overhaul both in the US and the UK, IMO anyway.
But the entire governmental system on children in general is in need of a massive overhaul both in the US and the UK, IMO anyway.
I know,but the morning after pill may help some girls. Also, contraception fails sometimes even for the most careful couple. There is no absolute prevention I guess the only reasonable way ahead is the point Beorththelm made above that the fetus is not "life" for a certain period. Still not comfortable with it but what else?
blue-shifted
Banned
Genuine question
Is there anyone who thinks it should be legally acceptable to terminate pregnancy at 38 weeks? Or are we unanimous there should be a cut off point?
Is there anyone who thinks it should be legally acceptable to terminate pregnancy at 38 weeks? Or are we unanimous there should be a cut off point?
Molango's visa
Molango's visa
It is possible to defend this logically - provided you don't bring religion into it.
If you believe that as soon as a sperm fuses with an egg you have life and, thus, a human being, and that the life of that human being is equal with the life of all human beings, then abortion is insupportable. However, this is a religious position, not a scientific one. And a rather partial religious position at that.
The scientific position is that life, after conception, does not define the existence of a human being. Moreover, whether a single cell is a human being or whether an embryo, a foetus or an infant is a human being is clearly meaningful only by invoking a sliding scale. The body destroys and sheds fertilized eggs without the 'mother' even knowing. Is this child-murder by neglect? Someone with the partial religious views noted above would (or should) petition to screen all women after intercourse to ensure they do not murder their 'baby' in utero.
No, there is a sliding scale. We all understand what a baby is, and we all understand what a single cell is. The human being whose life is sacred emerges somewhere in between. This is why we have a cut off date for legal abortion. It is hard to define but it is based around the evidence for what constitutes 'viable' life if the 'baby' were born prematurely. And this does not mean 'alive' in any state and regardless how briefly with the intervention of extreme medical support. You can keep a very premature (weeks) 'child' 'alive' in this state for quite a while. This is why we use reasonable prospect of viability to set the deadline, but this can be varied if, for example, there is a congenital issue, especially a likely lethal mutation.
We don't use sentience in this, by the way. A human is arguably not sentient until it can form and retain memories. How early is your first memory? Mine is aged two. But we would no more use sentience to define the upper abortion limit that we would use it to define a marriagable age (although some cultures would).
The reality is that if you set aside any religious imperative, whether to allow abortion, for what reasons and at what upper time limit are all arbitrary decisions, and the rules will change as we learn more.
If you find the idea of 'killing' abhorent, and feel really bad about abortion, then why not engage with all the education programmes to minimise unwanted pregnancy? Promote safe sex, education, all that stuff.
I would say I find it ironic that sections of society most opposed to abortion are also opposed to sex education and (in some groups) opposed to contraception. Orthodox Catholics, for example. Square that circle.
In my view nobody should advance opinions about medicine, social care, educatation or even moraility using a religious doctrine as their yardstick. And nobody should force other human beings to do anything (or be prevented from doing anything) on the basis of religious doctrine. If your religion has a position on an issue, fine, but you should not try imposing that on others. I appreciate that some religions carry as part of their doctrine the imperative to preach and to convert. That, also, should be illegal, in my view. I have had people in my face about god in my life, and I resent it (and what I experienced back in the day it could now be argued to constitute child abuse).
Perhaps the next phase of human emancipation, following 'allowing' working men, then women and (in the US) black people a vote, and 'allowing' homosexuals to not be thrown in gaol, will be for society to come down hard on public campaigning religion. As we see here, its public manifestation is like a cloak of invincibility that allows those in power to maintain power and control in an unquestionable fashion. Disgusting and wrong.
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
If ever I need a pretentious ****wits opinion I'll always have you to call upon.
There's an easy answer to that one: pro-lifers claim that life is from conception; pro-choice argue that life is only when a child can support itself outside the womb or when there's a heartbeat. So,you can be anti-capital punishment on the grounds that you don't want to take human life and be pro-choice on the grounds that there's no life to take.
And you can also be capital punishment on practical not ethical grounds, so that argument doesn't even come into it
To be fair to Klass your post was ****ed up.
I think that women should be able to choose what they want to do with their bodies. Raped, incest or not. Is that not a fair argument?
In a rational world, it’s the only sane argument.
I think after giving birth there should be a 3 month cooling off period.
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
Nah it's not. Just because you can't comprehend some of the ****ed up mindsets involved in this discussion doesn't mean they don't exist.
Even pro-choice women are deeply disturbed by those who want to push for laws that allow basically full term abortions. Laws that are coming into place in NY and Illinois.
Support for abortions drop off significantly as each trimester passes.
Don't talk about warped if you think aborting that late is acceptable.
So a view from someone who is living in the Good Ol boy, bible belt South.
The recent passing of these bills in Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama (next door state to Georgia) seems to be some sort of protection strategy from the Conservative block, in case the Democrate led Congress, get the Suprime Court to overturn Roe v Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade.) This bill that is the fundamental core of abortion rights in the USA. Furthermore the bill recently passed in New York State where abortions are allowed through the entire term and even after delivery (I personally have an issue with that, as to me thats murder) has got the Conservative block angry as well.
All of the politicians are voting for this as it was part of their manifesto to be elected or they were known to hold these views.
In Georgia they have passed the Heartbeat Bill, which stops abortions from 6 weeks on. However there are exceptions for Rape, incest and cases where the birth could cause the mother to die. And to Gwylan comment, Georgia will pay child support from that moment going forward.
Interestingly the "non white" communities are not visibly protesting, as they are traditionally large family groups plus the majority of most single mothers come from this demographic so they don't seem to want to go down the abortion route.
To Molangos comment "How many of the red neck good ole boy local parties in sweet home Alabama are likely to back a female (or black) person seeking to stand to be their representative for election? ". You would be surprised that there are quite a few. Black and Female representative are quite common in the South but primarily in City districts. Out in the sticks it is predominately white.
And finally the Govoner of Alabama who signed this bill into law was a woman!
The recent passing of these bills in Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama (next door state to Georgia) seems to be some sort of protection strategy from the Conservative block, in case the Democrate led Congress, get the Suprime Court to overturn Roe v Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade.) This bill that is the fundamental core of abortion rights in the USA. Furthermore the bill recently passed in New York State where abortions are allowed through the entire term and even after delivery (I personally have an issue with that, as to me thats murder) has got the Conservative block angry as well.
All of the politicians are voting for this as it was part of their manifesto to be elected or they were known to hold these views.
In Georgia they have passed the Heartbeat Bill, which stops abortions from 6 weeks on. However there are exceptions for Rape, incest and cases where the birth could cause the mother to die. And to Gwylan comment, Georgia will pay child support from that moment going forward.
Interestingly the "non white" communities are not visibly protesting, as they are traditionally large family groups plus the majority of most single mothers come from this demographic so they don't seem to want to go down the abortion route.
To Molangos comment "How many of the red neck good ole boy local parties in sweet home Alabama are likely to back a female (or black) person seeking to stand to be their representative for election? ". You would be surprised that there are quite a few. Black and Female representative are quite common in the South but primarily in City districts. Out in the sticks it is predominately white.
And finally the Govoner of Alabama who signed this bill into law was a woman!