Alabama Senate passes nation’s most restrictive abortion ban

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

Nobody wins here.

Of course not.

You framed the debate as either your rights or my rights, winner take all. Did you really expect there to be a winner in that type of contest?

But you did change my mind... so there's that. You can consider that a win.

TheRedneck

There are always solutions to problems but nobody seems to care to find any with this issue.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your mind isn't changed. Your heart is hardened. You know happens after the heart is hardened? Plagues!

a reply to: Tempter

disgraceful

a reply to: DBCowboy

But that's a very simplistic approach to a very complex issue. When does a fetus become developed enough to be considered alive? When do the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother and vice versa?

Questions like those are why there is so much gray area and debate over this issue. It's not just one side that thinks killing babies is fun and another side that thinks that's wrong.

a reply to: InTheLight

There are always solutions to problems but nobody seems to care to find any with this issue.

Of course not! You frame the debate, you remove any other options.

Again, according to you, as long as Roe vs. Wade stands, it's your rights or my rights, winner take all. I choose my rights. You choose your rights. Let's see who wins.

Looks like I won in Alabama.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You know happens after the heart is hardened? Plagues!

Yep.

Too bad the debate has been framed the way it has.

TheRedneck

I'm really confused, on the first page of this thread you were angry at the politicians in Alabama making you all in your state look like 'hicks' - your word, not mine, and you clearly seemed to be against this - now you've changed your mind because of what exactly?

a reply to: Xtrozero

As to the inferior male part we do not have a say either way, but still feel the repercussion either way.

That is the problem.

Oh, how I wish it weren't that way! But there is no sense in trying to wish away what is. It's our rights or women's rights, winner take all.

Maybe if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, that can change. It's just going to suck for a while.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: oldcarpy
I think you will find us Brits are not so easily "frazzled", particularly when the whole spoon thing was a joke anyway.

I mean, come on, your country is heading backwards virtually every day, old chap.

Brits are not so easily "frazzled" ... Brit comes on internet to complain how a law that will never be upheld, in a country they are not a citizen of, and in a state they will never visit will set back women's rights by a century ... nope not frazzled at all

What makes you think that people from the UK don't travel? As a rule most people I know are quite cosmopolitan.

Am I as a UK person 'frazzled'? No, I tend to think it's a backwards, misogynistic law that shows how some of the supposed great and the good in some American states have opinions that are antediluvian.

Now, to your point, I may never travel to Bangledesh for all I know - does that mean I shouldn't care about a womans right to choice in that country?

We aren't all that insular.

uncommitted; my comment was directed at a particular person and a specific line of argument they where making. They started the line of argument criticizing a whole group of people on the bases of what a few have said and done; I continued that line of thinking in my conversation with them with the hope they would see the mistake when it was turned around on them.

I did not intend to offend you and I do apologize if that was one of the results of my argument.

As for Brits traveling; I stated that this particular Brit would not likely be traveling to Alabama; not that Brits in general never travel. Now I can't be 100% sure this person won't travel to Alabama; but I'm responsible confident he won't be.

As to your larger point about Bangledesh; you most certainly should care about the human rights of the people who live there; I do. But what we shouldn't do is judge all people from Bangledesh for what some in Bangledesh believe, as did the person I was responding to did with us Yanks in their original post; ... but more importantly we should not judge Bangledesh using only our own moral compass; we also need to understand their way of life from the context of their moral compass and let that also inform our opinions of them and their country.

It's ok for you to think that Alabama just passed backwards, misogynistic law. I would agree with that assessment. But what you also must accept is that this is not a individual action in some new offensive. It is the culmination of decades long fighting among two groups of people who have actively decided to miss the forest for the trees when they interact with each other. That the people you view as backwards and misogynistic may in fact be morally compelled to defend what they see as another human life and that they have come to not care that you view them as backwards and misogynistic because to them they are fighting for something that is more important.

I could be wrong; Ill be the first to tell you I'm not smart enough to know what resides in people's hearts. These people might in fact be just as you think, backwards and misogynistic ... but I do know that if this is truly the case writing them off or worse attacking them at every turn is not a conservative way to deal with the problem. All that it will ensure is that we stay right where we are now. Two groups of people who have actively decided to miss the forest for the trees when they interact with each other. Neather one giving an inch over fear that the other will take a mile... or a kilometer in your case.

a reply to: DBCowboy

By refusing to add the ammendment to at least allow preteen girls an exemption they have placed the rights of the unborn above the rights of the preteen child since carrying a child atthat young age will most like effect her freedom to those rights for the rest of her life though. And since they can be so callous and uncaring to a child I am pretty sure that the right of adult women also risk being stripped from her if she finds herself in a position where a pregnancy will adversely affect her health and well being for the rest of their lives.
There cannot be equal right between a women and a lifeform growing within her. If a conflict occurs between the two one persons rights will have to be set above the others. This Bill obviously sets the rights of the fetus as supreme and says heck to the person carrying it.

originally posted by: InTheLight


Kay Ivey puts faith first, so she will sign it.

So we are back to the Middle Age's form of faith where Man forcefully imposes "faith" on the masses.

You WILL have faith, say it so MAN! I don't think that is how it is suppose to work..

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

But that's a very simplistic approach to a very complex issue. When does a fetus become developed enough to be considered alive? When do the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother and vice versa?

Questions like those are why there is so much gray area and debate over this issue. It's not just one side that thinks killing babies is fun and another side that thinks that's wrong.

When is an unborn baby considered human?

We make things unnecessarily complex when it is a very simple issue.

It's human. It's a human life. Very simple.

No grey area what-so-ever.

We can all agree that the unborn are humans, right?

That they always will be humans.

Yet these are really the one class of individuals left on the planet that have no rights at all.

They have none.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

There are always solutions to problems but nobody seems to care to find any with this issue.

Of course not! You frame the debate, you remove any other options.

Again, according to you, as long as Roe vs. Wade stands, it's your rights or my rights, winner take all. I choose my rights. You choose your rights. Let's see who wins.

Looks like I won in Alabama.

TheRedneck

There were never any options to begin with, so there can be no removal. I have since offered alternative options, what do you offer?

a reply to: uncommitted

I'm really confused, on the first page of this thread you were angry at the politicians in Alabama making you all in your state look like 'hicks' - your word, not mine, and you clearly seemed to be against this - now you've changed your mind because of what exactly?

I am assuming you intended this to me...

I changed my mind because I finally realized that no matter what position I take, as long as Roe vs. Wade stands, there is a substantial part of the population who will demand that I not have any say in making the laws of this country, regardless of what that opinion is, because I am a male. I wish that were not the case, because I would much prefer to work together to find a solution that everyone can accept. But I will not give up my right to be a part of the legal process in order to accomplish that.

I still feel great sympathy for those who will be caught in a legal trap; I still think this new bill is far less than desirable overall, but there is simply nothing I can do about that. In a perfect world, I would be agreeing with people like IntoTheLight and Sookiechacha on this, but we do not live in a perfect world; we live in a world where one side will lose everything. I do not wish to lose everything. That's what changed my mind.

Roe vs. Wade must go.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

There were never any options to begin with, so there can be no removal. I have since offered alternative options, what do you offer?

Your option is that men have no place in the debate; I reject that out of hand.

My solution is to start over. Repeal Roe vs. Wade. I have no other alternative that protects my rights.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

So we are back to the Middle Age's form of faith where Man forcefully imposes "faith" on the masses.

Gov. Kay Ivey is a Woman. Not a Man.

That means she gets to participate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Maybe I am wrong but seems to me that coupled would still be discussing this between themselves and hopefully agreeing and I imagine that when the can't find agreement between themselves women are just as apt to go along with what the man want a as the other way around.
What you seem to be pretending to be overjoyed about is that choice being taken away from both of yous even when it comes to your young daughter or granddaughter.

a reply to: TheRedneck

... I do not wish to lose everything.

What Has Roe V Wade taken from you, all these many years, that leaves you with everything lost?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

There were never any options to begin with, so there can be no removal. I have since offered alternative options, what do you offer?

Your option is that men have no place in the debate; I reject that out of hand.

My solution is to start over. Repeal Roe vs. Wade. I have no other alternative that protects my rights.

TheRedneck

My point was unequal representation from women in the senates of your country. Did you notice that all female senators voted against this Bill?

Havent read the entire thread so apologies if this has been said.

Laws like this are the reason abortion advocates relying on the court was a mistake.

Roe v wade, and the follow up decision in 1992 of Casey were horribly decided. The right to privacy has nothing to do with abortion.

Our constitution and 10th amendment are specific; if its not in the constitution, it up to the states.

So abortion advocates should instead push for an amendment instead of relying on courts, because courts can change their minds.