Alabama passes near total abortion ban

ilsayed

Member
Nov 7, 2018
115
60
160
It is more than ironic that conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade, but yet at the same time do not support any means of social support after the baby is born. Which is crucial for single parents and people in a lower income setting.

So I guess they care about the baby from the time of conception and up till birth, after that it’s on its own.

Pro-lifers have also stood against sex education in schools and the distribution of condoms and helping to lower the cost of birth control.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,064
3,644
250
It is more than ironic that conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade, but yet at the same time do not support any means of social support after the baby is born. Which is crucial for single parents and people in a lower income setting.

So I guess they care about the baby from the time of conception and up till birth, after that it’s on its own.

Pro-lifers have also stood against sex education in schools and the distribution of condoms and helping to lower the cost of birth control.
"Hey look, we won't kill our babies if you give me a monthly paycheck"

Ladies and gentlemen, the democratic party
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
It is more than ironic that conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade, but yet at the same time do not support any means of social support after the baby is born. Which is crucial for single parents and people in a lower income setting.

So I guess they care about the baby from the time of conception and up till birth, after that it’s on its own.

Pro-lifers have also stood against sex education in schools and the distribution of condoms and helping to lower the cost of birth control.
As I understand it, the conservative argument relies heavily on the society valuing personal responsibility. Forcing a woman to carry to term a baby that she chose to conceive is an enforcement of personal responsibility. If that child then grows up in a world that doesn't value personal responsibility and instead venerates the welfare state, then yeah, your point is valid. If, however, the conservatives can instill the personal responsibility mindset into the rest of society, then the child won't rely on welfare -- or social support, as you call it -- because it will be able to take care of itself as an adult, and so will its children, and so on.
 

Rran

Member
Jan 2, 2013
650
126
430
amugsblog.blogspot.com
An excellent quote from reddit:
I appreciate the attempt to make civil dialogue in lieu of a heated topic, and the general lack of name-calling, bad faith arguments etc in this post. That said, I have to point out that it makes a number of fallacies that don't hold weight under scrutiny.

The first is this idea that society will fall apart without abortion, and women will be unsafe and just get them anyway. The fact of the matter is, there's no evidence for this. In fact, in the year 1972--one year before Roe v Wade was passed--the CDC counted only 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortion. These were unfortunate, but consider that there were over 20 maternal deaths from legal abortion that same year. This view of a dystopian society where women are shoving coat hangers into themselves by the truckload is a myth with no basis in reality.

This idea might still permeate because of NARAL founder (turned pro-lifer) Bernard Nathanson pulling statistics right out of his butt: "In NARAL (the acronym for the then-National Association for the Reform of Abortion Laws) we generally emphasize the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths each year'. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false...But in the `morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Said Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and once the director of the busiest abortion clinic in the Western world. (From Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979.)"

Another issue with the post is appealing to the law to try to justify what's moral. Pro-lifers want to change the law as it is already, so pointing to other laws (such as not requiring blood donations to be mandatory, etc)--some of which are a bit controversial in their own right--is not a strong argument for why abortion should remain legal. Laws get changed literally all the time; the government is not the arbiter of what is just and right, as evidenced by the entirety of human history.

Lastly, the post claims to understand the pro-life position, but doesn't take into consideration the unborn. I guarantee you the same poster would not make the case for infanticide (killing a born person, toddler, etc) because "maybe you are poor" or "maybe your partner beats you and your child." Whenever I hear these excuses, all it says to me is that they don't feel the unborn deserve the same rights as the born.

It is more than ironic that conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade, but yet at the same time do not support any means of social support after the baby is born. Which is crucial for single parents and people in a lower income setting.

So I guess they care about the baby from the time of conception and up till birth, after that it’s on its own.
This is a strawman, an ad hominem and a red herring. Additionally, advocating for someone not to be killed is not the same as advocating that the government takes care of them. You can be against killing the homeless and still not feel that you have to take them into your house.
 
Last edited:

Mohonky

Member
Jan 19, 2007
11,117
653
1,135
Bodily autonomy is a right. Not a privilege. Lol.
Thats kind of the debate; at what point does a growing fetus have the right to exist.

This case goes overboard, in that circumstances like rape and incest should believe abortion should be absolutely considered, but I dont buy into late term abortion either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
603
204
420
As I understand it, the conservative argument relies heavily on the society valuing personal responsibility. Forcing a woman to carry to term a baby that she chose to conceive is an enforcement of personal responsibility. If that child then grows up in a world that doesn't value personal responsibility and instead venerates the welfare state, then yeah, your point is valid. If, however, the conservatives can instill the personal responsibility mindset into the rest of society, then the child won't rely on welfare -- or social support, as you call it -- because it will be able to take care of itself as an adult, and so will its children, and so on.
Things are not this simple nor so black and white. And a lot of conservatives I have personally known in my life talk a great deal about “personal responsibility” but very few actually practice it. I have also known quite a few conservatives throughout my life who do not support abortion, but that didn’t stop them from taking their daughters to have one, when their daughter got pregnant.

If you want a teenager or a woman of modest means or who is struggling financially to carry a child to term, a child she may have conceived because a man took his condom off during sex or perhaps she was raped. Then you should also be Christian enough to help her afford to give the child the best care that the baby can receive. So it can grow up healthy and in good spirits, and knowing society has put them in a better position to achieve.

But at the same time if you want to ban abortion, then perhaps support sexual education in school and distribution of condoms and to make contraception more affordable. To help prevent unwanted pregnancies.
 
Last edited:

SpartanN92

Member
Sep 7, 2012
2,449
548
475
Pro-lifers have also stood against sex education in schools and the distribution of condoms and helping to lower the cost of birth control.
Condoms cost about $.40 a piece. Let’s assume you use 1 condom PER DAY, it costs less than $200 per year.

Fuck off with “BiRtH cOnTrOl CoStS tOo MuCh”

 
Last edited:

ilsayed

Member
Nov 7, 2018
115
60
160
100 years from now we will look back on abortion the same way we do slavery today.

You leftist scumbags that are in favor of abortion as a means of birth control are on the wrong side of history.
No we won’t.

That’s not what abortion is. Try to do some research on the reasons for abortion before you spout bullshit.
 

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
603
204
420
I appreciate the attempt to make civil dialogue in lieu of a heated topic, and the general lack of name-calling, bad faith arguments etc in this post. That said, I have to point out that it makes a number of fallacies that don't hold weight under scrutiny.

The first is this idea that society will fall apart without abortion, and women will be unsafe and just get them anyway. The fact of the matter is, there's no evidence for this. In fact, in the year 1972--one year before Roe v Wade was passed--the CDC counted only 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortion. These were unfortunate, but consider that there were over 20 maternal deaths from legal abortion that same year. This view of a dystopian society where women are shoving coat hangers into themselves by the truckload is a myth with no basis in reality.

This idea might still permeate because of NARAL founder (turned pro-lifer) Bernard Nathanson pulling statistics right out of his butt: "In NARAL (the acronym for the then-National Association for the Reform of Abortion Laws) we generally emphasize the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths each year'. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false...But in the `morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Said Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and once the director of the busiest abortion clinic in the Western world. (From Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979.)"

Another issue with the post is appealing to the law to try to justify what's moral. Pro-lifers want to change the law as it is already, so pointing to other laws (such as not requiring blood donations to be mandatory, etc)--some of which are a bit controversial in their own right--is not a strong argument for why abortion should remain legal. Laws get changed literally all the time; the government is not the arbiter of what is just and right, as evidenced by the entirety of human history.

Lastly, the post claims to understand the pro-life position, but doesn't take into consideration the unborn. I guarantee you the same poster would not make the case for infanticide (killing a born person, toddler, etc) because "maybe you are poor" or "maybe your partner beats you and your child." Whenever I hear these excuses, all it says to me is that they don't feel the unborn deserve the same rights as the born.



This is a strawman, an ad hominem and a red herring. Additionally, advocating for someone not to be killed is not the same as advocating that the government takes care of them. You can be against killing the homeless and still not feel that you have to take them into your house.
So you are against abortion, and also against social assistance for the baby. I assume you are also against maternity leave.

So you prefer a child be brought in poverty and not receive any support if the mother for instance is struggling financially.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
Things are not this simple nor so black and white. And a lot of conservatives I have personally known in my life talk a great deal about “personal responsibility” but very few actually practice it. I have also known quite a few conservatives throughout my life who do not support abortion, but that didn’t stop them from taking their daughters to have one, when their daughter got pregnant.

If you want a teenage woman or a woman of modest means or who is struggling financially to carry a child to term, a child she may have conceived because a man took his condom off during sex or perhaps she was raped. Then you should also be Christian enough to help her afford to give the child the best care that the baby can receive. So it can grow up healthy and in good spirits, and knowing society has put them in a better position to achieve.

But at the same time if you want to ban abortion, then perhaps support sexual education in school and distribution of condoms and to make contraception more affordable. To help prevent unwanted pregnancies.
That's right, it's not a black and white issue, which is why we need to be able to discuss the merits of either side of the debate without histrionics as many on the left immediately resort to when the topic of abortion comes up. They are the mirror image of the conservative Christian housewives from 20 years ago who would immediately label pro-choicers as evil without even trying to understand their arguments. It's one of those topics where the right answer -- or as close as we are going to get -- is somewhere in the middle, and compromise from either side will of course be necessary to get there. However, it's quite telling that the most cogent and informed arguments I am seeing these days are coming from the right:

The destruction of human life is unethical. When the human mind first began turning towards philosophy, it didn't take long to realize that abortion is unethical, culminating in the Hippocratic Oath. Science is unequivocal that a new, distinct, genetically-human life begins at the moment of conception. It is absolutely not a person choosing what happens only to their own body. The greatest pro-life advocates out there today are all women. The pro-life movement is majority-driven by women. The architects and sponsors of these laws arising throughout the country are women.

The United States is now entering into a new era of Reconstruction. The Constitution does not anywhere create a right to abortion, and almost all of substantive law is delegated to the states. Self-governing people have a right to determine what kind of society they want to live in. Even far leftists like Ginsburg admit that Roe v Wade is among the most poorly-reasoned legal opinions in our history. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is likewise a entirely unfounded circumvention of Article I of the Constitution and complete abrogation of the 10th Amendment. I don't fully trust Kavanaugh and Roberts to fulfill their Article III responsibilities, but I'm excited to see state lawmakers reasserting our Constitutional principles through bold, life-affirming legislation.
I don't agree with his assertion that abortion is inherently unethical, but I respect the fact that he has put thought into his argument and attempted to sharpen it with the whetstones of law, history and philosophy without shrieking "evil" and collapsing into a sobbing heap like his political opponents did in this thread.

You seem to assume I'm a Christian, but I can assure you I'm not. I don't want to ban abortion, as I've already stated, but I do want us to stop pretending that it's a right or a positive thing or that the debate is solely about bodily autonomy. I'm in favour of abortion in cases of rape, as I have stated, but I also recognise how difficult it would be to administer because it would incentivise false rape claims. I'm in favour of sex ed in high schools but I'm not in favour of paying for people's condoms because that also comes under personal responsibility. There's a whole heap of nuance to this debate that one side is really struggling to address without using the word "evil".
 

RedVIper

Member
Jun 13, 2017
1,253
1,369
220
So you are against abortion, and also against social assistance for the baby. I assume you are also against maternity leave.

So you prefer a child be brought in poverty and not receive any support if the mother for instance is struggling financially.
If someone is against abortion due to moral issues trying to argue about what happens after birth is kinda pointless, you're just having a different argument.
 

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
603
204
420
"Hey look, we won't kill our babies if you give me a monthly paycheck"

Ladies and gentlemen, the democratic party

That is your takeaway from what I said?

Ogaboghi2, I do not mean to be insulting, but I do not think reading comprehension is your strong suit.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
That is your takeaway from what I said?

Ogaboghi2, I do not mean to be insulting, but I do not think reading comprehension is your strong suit.
1. Yes you do. Admit it. It's fine to be insulting if warranted, but don't be a duplicitous coward about it.

2. Evidently it's not yours either since I just explained the perspective and you replied then carried on with the same pigheaded assumptions in another post:

As I understand it, the conservative argument relies heavily on the society valuing personal responsibility. Forcing a woman to carry to term a baby that she chose to conceive is an enforcement of personal responsibility. If that child then grows up in a world that doesn't value personal responsibility and instead venerates the welfare state, then yeah, your point is valid. If, however, the conservatives can instill the personal responsibility mindset into the rest of society, then the child won't rely on welfare -- or social support, as you call it -- because it will be able to take care of itself as an adult, and so will its children, and so on.
So you are against abortion, and also against social assistance for the baby. I assume you are also against maternity leave.

So you prefer a child be brought in poverty and not receive any support if the mother for instance is struggling financially.
 

Rran

Member
Jan 2, 2013
650
126
430
amugsblog.blogspot.com
So you are against abortion, and also against social assistance for the baby. I assume you are also against maternity leave.

So you prefer a child be brought in poverty and not receive any support if the mother for instance is struggling financially.
To quote your own post...

That is your takeaway from what I said?
I'm saying they're two different issues and talking about welfare is deflecting from the core discussion of whether abortion should be legal or not.

You're assuming I'm a conservative and lumping in my beliefs about abortion with my beliefs in everything else. I could just as easily point to the democrat party for their hypocrisy regarding abortion ("How can you be for helping out the poor and disenfranchised when you don't give a hoot about the poorest and most disenfranchised people on the planet?"), but that's not really a discussion worth having; it's a separate issue and appeals to hypocrisy are yet another fallacy.

Incidentally, I'm not against social assistance or maternity leave at all. In fact, as a dad, I think maternity leave should be longer! (I think paternity leave should exist as well) But that's neither here nor there.

To address the poverty issue: would you advocate for killing an impoverished two-year old because they're poor? Assuming not, what makes a fetus's value different that it could be killed for that same reason?

Here’s an idea if you don’t support abortions: don’t get one. Let everyone else make that same life changing decision for themselves.
This old gem. Let me ask you something--do you know why pro-lifers are so adamant against abortion? I feel like you don't understand the pro-life position if you're saying this line. It's essentially the equivalent of saying "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave. Mind your own business." It's not going to convince any pro-lifers.
 
Last edited:

SpartanN92

Member
Sep 7, 2012
2,449
548
475
Here’s an idea if you don’t support abortions: don’t get one. Let everyone else make that same life changing decision for themselves.
Here’s an idea if you don’t support slavery: don’t get slaves. Let everyone else make that same life changing decision for themselves.

And seriously this “Life shattering decision” “Hardest choice I’ve ever made” bullshit is an evil media spin.
If you elect to murder your own child you SHOULD feel that guilt for the rest of your life. Frankly I don’t buy that that many women feel that way about it anyway. I’ve heard too many disgusting liberals brag about how many abortions they’ve had.
 

O-N-E

Member
Jul 11, 2018
160
184
220
The idea that it is just for a woman to have the legal right to kill her child at any point of her pregnancy is baffling.

There are many subtleties to argue over, sure, but fighting tooth and nail for such an all-encompassing lack of responsibility is just fucking insane.

If you can't handle taking care of the child, give it up for adoption, don't freaking kill them! What in the world...
 

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
603
204
420
That's right, it's not a black and white issue, which is why we need to be able to discuss the merits of either side of the debate without histrionics as many on the left immediately resort to when the topic of abortion comes up. They are the mirror image of the conservative Christian housewives from 20 years ago who would immediately label pro-choicers as evil without even trying to understand their arguments. It's one of those topics where the right answer -- or as close as we are going to get -- is somewhere in the middle, and compromise from either side will of course be necessary to get there. However, it's quite telling that the most cogent and informed arguments I am seeing these days are coming from the right:



I don't agree with his assertion that abortion is inherently unethical, but I respect the fact that he has put thought into his argument and attempted to sharpen it with the whetstones of law, history and philosophy without shrieking "evil" and collapsing into a sobbing heap like his political opponents did in this thread.

You seem to assume I'm a Christian, but I can assure you I'm not. I don't want to ban abortion, as I've already stated, but I do want us to stop pretending that it's a right or a positive thing or that the debate is solely about bodily autonomy. I'm in favour of abortion in cases of rape, as I have stated, but I also recognise how difficult it would be to administer because it would incentivise false rape claims. I'm in favour of sex ed in high schools but I'm not in favour of paying for people's condoms because that also comes under personal responsibility. There's a whole heap of nuance to this debate that one side is really struggling to address without using the word "evil".
I respect your difference of opinion and I would not label you as evil. That is not what I am attempting to convey in any of my responses in this thread.

I just have a difference of opinion, especially in regards to social support for people who are struggling.

Sorry perhaps it sounded like I was suggesting you are Christian, but what I meant is that most Pro-lifers are and it would be more consistent with their beliefs to support social assistance for children born in less than desirable social-economic positions.

I will say that I agree with you about late term abortions. I personally believe 16 weeks should be the cut off point, unless it is medically necessary to do so after that point.

Personally speaking though, I would not advise any woman to have an abortion, but at the same time it is not my business to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
I respect your difference of opinion and I would not label you as evil. That is not what I am attempting to convey in any of my responses in this thread.

I just have a difference of opinion, especially in regards to social support for people who are struggling.

Sorry perhaps it sounded like I was suggesting you are Christian, but what I meant is that most Pro-lifers are and it would be more consistent with their beliefs to support social assistance for children born in less than desirable social-economic positions.

I will say that I agree with you about late term abortions. I personally believe 16 weeks should be the cut off point, unless it is medically necessary to do so after that point.

Personally speaking though, I would not advise any woman to have an abortion, but at the same time it is not my business to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.
It sounds like we're mostly on the same page then.
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
448
344
860
Abortion is one of those tricky subjects where I don’t know where I fall. I know I had two profound moments where it became real.

The first was right out of high school when my friend told me she was pregnant and was keeping it. I thought she was crazy and would ruin her life. She then married the father, they struggled to make ends meet, but now they are living happily with their teenage son (and have a second 3 year old now).

The second is when I heard my daughters heartbeat on the ultrasound and suddenly being a parent became real and I was overloaded with immediate unconditional love for a very much human baby in my wife’s body.

Both of those experiences lean me closer to pro life than pro choice, but my ego is not so great that I am compelled to force my morals on others.

To me it’s very simple. If there is at all a slight chance that the baby can survive out of the womb and live a normal life it deserves the right to do so and to take that right is tantamount to murder. My best friend in elementary school was born way premature (like second trimester, was at one point the smallest baby ever delivered in the state or something crazy) she was legally blind as a result, but alive, happy and well. Whenever I hear people talk about third or even second trimester abortions I think of her and it makes me sick. This isn’t some hypothetical for me. I’ve seen and been best friends with someone who now could literally be on the chopping block.

While I disagree with Alabama and Georgia’s new law, I find New York’s a lot more appalling. You can’t say it’s not a life if you have to kill it.
 

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
603
204
420
1. Yes you do. Admit it. It's fine to be insulting if warranted, but don't be a duplicitous coward about it.

2. Evidently it's not yours either since I just explained the perspective and you replied then carried on with the same pigheaded assumptions in another post:
This is not the first time Ogaboshi2 has misconstrued my comments.

That response you highlighted was not to you, but to Rran.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
This is not the first time Ogaboshi2 has misconstrued my comments.

That response you highlighted was not to you, but to Rran.
Right, but it doesn’t matter who that response was to. My point was that you made an assertion based on a misunderstanding of the conservative argument, had it explained to you, then carried on with the original assertion as though the explanation didn’t happen.
 

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
603
204
420
Right, but it doesn’t matter who that response was to. My point was that you made an assertion based on a misunderstanding of the conservative argument, had it explained to you, then carried on with the original assertion as though the explanation didn’t happen.
You are referring to when you brought up conservative ideal of “personal responsibility”.

Well, as I said everything is not so black and white and hardship does occur to even the most hard working of us. So despite their idealogy on that, which also aligns with their tilt towards social Darwinism. I just happen to disagree, due to all the varying complexities that occur in life and believe that people need assistance sometimes and I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards that assistance. But you are also talking to someone who willingly volunteers to help people.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,595
1,709
1,035
Having an abortion is personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is more than "something happened, now go through with it".

Personal responsibility plus the context of protecting an innocent life, is already at a happy medium.

Abortion should be reduced the right way by perfecting birth control methods for men and women. We are in the age of science, we are heading towards automation, we can have technology work for us, to give us better options.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
You are referring to when you brought up conservative ideal of “personal responsibility”.

Well, as I said everything is not so black and white and hardship does occur to even the most hard working of us. So despite their idealogy on that, which also aligns with their tilt towards social Darwinism. I just happen to disagree, due to all the varying complexities that occur in life and believe that people need assistance sometimes and I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards that assistance. But you are also talking to someone who willingly volunteers to help people.
But don't you think those cases of hardship need to exist as a warning against what can happen if you don't take personal responsibility? How do you incentivise personal responsibility in your proposed system?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
Having an abortion is personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is more than "something happened, now go through with it".

Personal responsibility plus the context of protecting an innocent life, is already at a happy medium.

Abortion should be reduced the right way by perfecting birth control methods for men and women. We are in the age of science, we are heading towards automation, we can have technology work for us, to give us better options.
 

chaos789

Member
Nov 21, 2012
603
204
420
But don't you think those cases of hardship need to exist as a warning against what can happen if you don't take personal responsibility? How do you incentivise personal responsibility in your proposed system?
I will have to get back to you on that as it will take awhile to explain my position and I have to unfortunately get up in 6 hours.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,423
1,146
540
The architects and sponsors of these laws arising throughout the country are women.
The four women on Alabama's legislature voted against it. All of their proposed amendments were rejected. All of those who voted for it where men. You are full of shit.

Also "lifenews.com" is not science.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,064
3,644
250
That is your takeaway from what I said?

Ogaboghi2, I do not mean to be insulting, but I do not think reading comprehension is your strong suit.
No, I think I got it right the first time

How big should the check big? $1000 a month, $2000?

How much money should the government pay you for you to give a shit about your child? What is "it" worth?

Who was the architect of the bill? Keep your eye on the ball.
Answer the question
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,551
16,441
685
Who was the architect of the bill? Keep your eye on the ball.
He is keeping his eye on the ball.

  • Fact, more women voted for these men to get them elected, than men.
  • Fact, a woman signed the bill into law.

That is what you call a Home Run in politics with that type of sandwich. Whether you agree with the law or not is another argument, which is also taking place.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,423
1,146
540
Who voted for the white men?
Should I produce polls showing how this bill is fringe levels of ideology even among Republicans? This is literally a state legislature refusing to represent its population by banning abortions for incest and rape and putting people in prison because "God" and "souls."

He is keeping his eye on the ball.

  • Fact, more women voted for these men to get them elected, than men.
  • Fact, a woman signed the bill into law.

That is what you call a Home Run in politics with that type of sandwich.
Yes very "home run" other than the whole "violating constitutional law" and "being incredibly politically unpopular/fringe" and "98% of the people who created and voted for it are white men" and "none of them actually campaigned on promising to criminalize abortion for rape and incest cases." Other then all that, yea, Home Run.

The views passed in this bill represent a pitiful percentage of Republican beliefs on abortion at large. This is virtue signaling at it's most damning, where fringe beliefs are taking over mainstream Republican posturing. You know, that thing so many conservatives on here are hyperventilating is what will happen with Democrats when they get taken over by AOC-types.

Also a reminder: you are in this thread defending a bill which criminalizes abortion for cases of incest and rape by breaking constitutional law. :messenger_ok:
 
Last edited:

Sakura

Member
Feb 13, 2012
8,313
217
520
Canada
Who needs to worry about the infiltration of Islamic Sharia Law when we have Christian Law being forced down women's throat by the beloved GOP, the party of rationality and clarity. These state representatives are literally depriving women of their constitutional right to choose because God and donor activists told them it was the right thing.



So the GOP is not only pushing forward the most fringiest, extreme beliefs of its party but legislating them into state law. The longer term goal is (of course) overturning Roe V Wade on the hopes that the current conservative majority in the Supreme Court's will overturn a 40+ year old constitutional ruling. But they made sure to keep the "no rape or incest" provision anyway despite its moral depravity. A truly disgusting act of government.
I'm not sure what being pro-life has to do with religion. I am atheist and pro-life.

The whole rape talk is always hilarious to me as well. It's not like you pro-choice people would be on board with banning abortions, if pregnancies from rape/incest were added to situations where it was allowed, so don't use it as a point of argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,423
1,146
540
I'm not sure what being pro-life has to do with religion. I am atheist and pro-life.

The whole rape talk is always hilarious to me as well. It's not like you pro-choice people would be on board with banning abortions, if pregnancies from rape/incest were added to situations where it was allowed, so don't use it as a point of argument.
That is the entire justification for this legislature. They literally reference God when talking about their justifications. (i.e. "every life is a sacred gift from God")

Congrats on being a rare unicorn of irrationality.
 
Last edited:

ilsayed

Member
Nov 7, 2018
115
60
160
No, I think I got it right the first time

How big should the check big? $1000 a month, $2000?

How much money should the government pay you for you to give a shit about your child? What is "it" worth?

Answer the question
As much as it takes to give this fetus the life you so desperately want it to have. Your current value for it is $0.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,551
16,441
685
Should I produce polls showing how this bill is fringe levels of ideology even among Republicans? This is literally a state legislature refusing to represent its population by banning abortions for incest and rape and putting people in prison because "God" and "souls."



Yes very "home run" other than the whole "violating constitutional law" and "being incredibly politically unpopular/fringe" and "98% of the people who created and voted for it are white men" and "none of them actually campaigned on promising to criminalize abortion for rape and incest cases." Other then all that, yea, Home Run.

The views passed in this bill represent a pitiful percentage of Republican beliefs on abortion at large. This is virtue signaling at it's most damning, where fringe beliefs are taking over mainstream Republican posturing. You know, that thing so many conservatives on here are hyperventilating is what will happen with Democrats when they get taken over by AOC-types.

Also a reminder: you are in this thread defending a bill which criminalizes abortion for cases of incest and rape by breaking constitutional law. :messenger_ok:
You are talking like I agree with it, leading with such emotion.

I am only describing how they got it done. And they would have never gotten it done without heavy support from women as well. Stop being obtuse with the typical sexist and racially charged “white men” rhetoric.

:messenger_weary: :messenger_ok: Damn male whitey!
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
Should I produce polls showing how this bill is fringe levels of ideology even among Republicans? This is literally a state legislature refusing to represent its population by banning abortions for incest and rape and putting people in prison because "God" and "souls."



Yes very "home run" other than the whole "violating constitutional law" and "being incredibly politically unpopular/fringe" and "98% of the people who created and voted for it are white men" and "none of them actually campaigned on promising to criminalize abortion for rape and incest cases." Other then all that, yea, Home Run.

The views passed in this bill represent a pitiful percentage of Republican beliefs on abortion at large. This is virtue signaling at it's most damning, where fringe beliefs are taking over mainstream Republican posturing. You know, that thing so many conservatives on here are hyperventilating is what will happen with Democrats when they get taken over by AOC-types.

Also a reminder: you are in this thread defending a bill which criminalizes abortion for cases of incest and rape by breaking constitutional law. :messenger_ok:
But you're the one framing it as a problem caused by white males being in power. We agree that the bill is a problem. We don't agree that it's because of white males being in power. So again, I ask you: who voted for the white males?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,551
16,441
685
Creampie or nah is personal responsibility.

Having an abortion is personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is more than "something happened, now go through with it".

Personal responsibility plus the context of protecting an innocent life, is already at a happy medium.

Abortion should be reduced the right way by perfecting birth control methods for men and women. We are in the age of science, we are heading towards automation, we can have technology work for us, to give us better options.
Added one for you that is always overlooked in the personal responsibility talk.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: matt404au