Alabama Senate passes nation’s most restrictive abortion ban

a reply to: SailorJerry

The heart beat argument is rather flawed.

What makes a human, a muscle pumping blood or being aware that it even has a heart? The brain doesnt even start developing until roughly four weeks in, the heart shortly after.

So women who get abortions before the end of the first month is technically not murder with your logic.

I'm curious how many right wing people here think this will actually stop abortion? This doesn't stop abortion, it only stops safe abortion. It will still happen, only now illegally.

It seems the same logic you all use to rail against banning guns is missing here. Funny that.

News flash

Women leaving state by the thousands. Legislature can't understand why

Just my thought

a reply to: Wildbob77

According to the bill if they are caught they can get charged doing just that. It's really messed up.

a reply to: underwerks

It would seem to me that you are right.

All politics really is are 2 groups trying to tell each other what they can and cannot do, and then pass laws to make it official.

I am staunchly pro life. But believe that we need to make a better argument for our position before we try to make any changes.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Morally, I'm against abortion. But I also realize it isn't my place to legislate my morals onto other people. And it especially isn't the governments place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body.

I think the government has no more right to tell someone what they can do with their body than it does with their mind.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Couple quick questions for anyone that supports this bill:

I don't support this bill but I'll try to answer your question to further the discussion.

1.) If life begins at conception, does that mean any child conceived on US soil is a US citizen?

Why conflate two controversial topics that realy have nothing to do with each other? How does it further the discussion over abortion and bring us all closer to a mutual understanding.

But if we must conflate the two; I would imagine that a good majority of people who do agree with this bill probably also have a problem with birthright citizenship. So they would argue that both life begins at conception and a child conceived on US soil should not be made a US citizen. The stance on the two subjects are not mutually exclusive.

2.) If life begins at conception, does that mean child support payments should begin as soon as a woman knows she's pregnant?

I would hope that those who support this bill would be in favor of child support beginning when it can be positively determined that the child is the man's. Unfortunately that can not be done at conception. But once it can be determined child support should be retroactive.

However such an imposition would open up a whole other can of worms that proponents of abortion may not want to open. It would put into question the argument that abortion is the sole domain of the woman involved; because you will now be burdening the man involved as well. He would as a result than need to have some level of representation in the desistion making over the abortion of the child he is legally responsible for.

I as a proponent of abortion would think it's a bad idea to go down that road. It would have far more reaching implications than a law that won't be upheld in a state most of us will never visit.

3.) What about CHIPS? Shouldn't that kick in as soon as a woman becomes pregnant?

That's low hanging frute; women in need of medical attention and can not afford it should be dealt with according to the social programs available to all people of a state or country. What makes pregnancy any different?

If you are suggesting that the woman and the fetus should both be given social medical assistance at the same time I really don't understand how that would work; as they are treated simultaneously as one unit. A Doctor can not physically treat a pregnant woman but at the same time ignore the fetus. Nor is the fetus and woman charged separately for the medical attention.

a reply to: underwerks

I think any reasonable person can readily admit that "what you do with your body" does not quite capture the totality of what is being discussed here. Its not like a law outlawing tattoo's.

You have a moral issue with it because you believe it to be wrong. That is what morals are. Now...more information may show that its just a "lump of cells" or something. Or it may show that abortion actually is murder. Without more information, we cannot say for sure. BUT...what is being discussed here is a concern about murder. Its definitely not a simple "its your body" type of question.

a reply to: strongfp

Gee did they also include a mandatory pregnancy test for every female before they are allowed to leave the state? Are they gonna fund pregnancy checkpoint at the border on every road leading out of the state? Or will that come up in the next session?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

To me, it is simple. Because what we are talking about is the government controlling what a woman chooses to do with her own body and reproduction. The ends don't justify the means.

Whether I think abortion is right or wrong is beside the point.

You can argue all day about what point life begins, that isn't what this is about to me. Women should be able to choose whether to put themselves through the risk of bearing a child. It shouldn't be the governments decision.

Period.

a reply to: dawnstar

Guess so. Some totaltairan stuff right there. Show me your papers woman!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: underwerks

It would seem to me that you are right.

All politics really is are 2 groups trying to tell each other what they can and cannot do, and then pass laws to make it official.

I am staunchly pro life. But believe that we need to make a better argument for our position before we try to make any changes.

That is the definition of democratic laws; society telling individuals what they can and can not do. The idea is that as a collective society "knows best"; because at its best it is the collective knowledge of all people with in the society.

The problem is we currently reside in a society not at it's best. Tribalism and our domestic enemies have devided most of us in to 2 groups. And now we don't make laws collectively we instead go back and forth trying out do each other.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Umn there isn't gonna be a reasonable conversation if one side start out saying "we want to force your
child to have children because a monster took advantage of them. And since a good many women wouldn't be sure they are pregnant in the small window the law permits abortion to take place. The idea that child support would give the father a say in the abortion decision is kind of moot since it most likely takes the decision away from both of them.
And you obviously know nothing about having kids because in most cases the ob gyn handles the pregnancy up till birth. Once born the baby is placed in the care of a pediatrician. And I am not sure if you can preemptively get on chips or if they only help in insuring babies that you can provide a birth certificate for.

a reply to: jaxnmarko

Why is it that a group made up of, I believe, entirely men (there may be a few women in the statehouse there)

What, men aren't allowed to make law anymore according to you?

Well, here's a little tip: the bill was sponsored by Terri Collins, a woman. It now goes to the Governor's desk... that would be Kay Ivey, a woman (who I am proud to support so far). Seems your belief is about as factual as the moon being made out of cheese. And even if it wasn't, how about this: every single politician in the statehouse was elected by women as well as men. Women get to vote in Alabama! How about that!

Here's an idea... I'll go along with this idea that men cannot vote in any way on any abortion-related issue if we can, at the same time, restrict women from voting on anything else. Hey, one idea makes as much sense as another!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

To me, it is simple. Because what we are talking about is the government controlling what a woman chooses to do with her own body and reproduction. The ends don't justify the means.

Whether I think abortion is right or wrong is beside the point.

You can argue all day about what point life begins, that isn't what this is about to me. Women should be able to choose whether to put themselves through the risk of bearing a child. It shouldn't be the governments decision.

Period.

Its also the government telling a woman that she cannot kill her child.

Its not cut and dry. The woman isn't the only being affected here.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DanDanDat

Umn there isn't gonna be a reasonable conversation if one side start out saying "we want to force your
child to have children because a monster took advantage of them. And since a good many women wouldn't be sure they are pregnant in the small window the law permits abortion to take place. The idea that child support would give the father a say in the abortion decision is kind of moot since it most likely takes the decision away from both of them.
And you obviously know nothing about having kids because in most cases the ob gyn handles the pregnancy up till birth. Once born the baby is placed in the care of a pediatrician. And I am not sure if you can preemptively get on chips or if they only help in insuring babies that you can provide a birth certificate for.

1) We are past reasonable and/because both sides have decided to put their fingers in their ears and arguing with the voices in their head instead of actually listen and reflect on what other real people have to say.

Example instead of listening to others you want to believe this whole thing started with this bill ... it didn't. The subject of abortion has been argued over for decades. This Bill is just the latest in the path of oneupsmanship both sides are on.

2) To that end the only way off that destructive path is for one or both sides to step back and listen to what the other side is actually saying.

a reply to: uncommitted

likes to pretend it's the land of the free.

It is a little more know, cuz you know "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

originally posted by: underwerks
What the hell is wrong with people? They claim to be for small government, but then try to use it to regulate another person's body. I don't get it.

The religious types behind this want sharia law. Just based on a different middle eastern religion.

Screw you Alabama. And every Republican POS that thinks it's ok to use the government to control womens bodies.

If a woman controlled her body by using contraception or abstinence in the first place, this wouldn't be happening. Take responsibility for your actions, that's what adults do.

BTW, I am neither pro choice nor pro life. I am pro responsibility. There are times when abortion is potentially necessary, as in rape, incest and the mother's life. However, abortion is NOT contraception.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: jaxnmarko

Why is it that a group made up of, I believe, entirely men

Oh cut the crap with that straw man, its like you people have 0 critical thinking skills.. the supreme court of 1973 that passed RvW was 100% male, whats your point?

This is an orchestrated march into a fascist theocracy. Baby steps.

Next, it will be increasingly difficult for women to get contraception pills of devises.