But the decision wasn't made at the Federal Level, it was made at the state level in Alabama, and it was basically made by white males.
Alabama Abortion Bill
- Thread starter bqknight
- Start date
But the decision wasn't made at the Federal Level, it was made at the state level in Alabama, and it was basically made by white males.
Let's please just establish 2 facts here:
- The overwhelming majority of abortions in this country are done electively and for convenience. A tiny, tiny amount are performed due to rape, incest, or threat to mother's lives.
- Again, if we are talking about LATE TERM pregnancy complications, the solution will ALWAYS be to deliver the baby and end the pregnancy. Not abort it. No one is going to be forced to carry to term if there's a serious problem but the solution also isn't abortion.
It depends. There are obviously emergency C-sections quite often, but it would also depend on exactly what the issue was and if the mother and baby could both go through that process.
Why do you keep saying this? It was sponsored by a woman and it'll be signed by a woman as Governor.
But who gives a shit if white males voted? This nonsense that white males are so terrible that they can't possibly vote on matters like this is tired, and ridiculous. Those dreaded white males were probably voted into office thanks to a lot of women back home.
This is patently false. A woman with potentially life ending issues is never solved by having an abortion. The treatments for the issues may kill the baby, but that is a totally different issue and you will find exactly zero people that would tell a woman not to receive treatment for that even if it risks the life of the baby.
The vast majority of abortions are done for "convenience" I agree. The vast majority are also done early as well, and there is typically a reason beyond "convenience" that late term abortions are performed. But also lets keep in mind, in both Alabama and Georgia we are not just talking about late term, we are essentially talking about all abortions.
I said it because its true.
And BTW. 4 female senators tried to add amendments to the bill (mostly rape and incest clauses), and they were voted down.
Let's please establish one fact here:
The notion that the overwhelming majority of abortions in this country are done for the sake of convenience is bullsh*t.
Yeah, I would take the opinion of a doctor in this case than a pro life advocate, just saying. And I am not sure how you can even make that argument. All medical complications aren't the same.
I've shared plenty of articles on here with Doctors' groups stating in no uncertain terms that it is never medically necessary to kill the baby in a late term abortion to save a mother's life. So I feel good with my opinion because it is repeating their opinion. You can choose the emotional appeal all you want, but you're ignoring real science when you do so.
Of course you can have independent representation of the basic inalienable human rights of a human life in utero. Do you think that all lawyers do nothing but represent their own views whenever they represent clients in any form? Of course they don't. They would (and do in other countries) argue the rights of the baby versus someone else arguing the rights of the mother and an independent judge would make a decision based on the law.
Got it. I'm on board in these instances of no survival if that is the medical consensus. My last concern then would be checks and balances when the medical decision is made. I totally understand we can trust overwhelming majority of doctors but just like the prescription pill issue you never know.
And there are no doctors who have both the interest of a woman and the baby that claim that abortion is necessary to save the mothers life. Acute preeclampsia is probably the only situation where a mothers life is in danger, so getting the baby out ASAP is necessary. C section is the fastest way to do that, induced labor is 2nd. Abortion just means that the baby is killed and then delivered, providing nothing on the lines of medical protection that would have come via the other options.
lol your buddy Cubs just agreed with them 2 posts above. What I said it absolutely true. It's hard to pin down a number but most every study has found that anywhere between 90-97% of abortions in a given year are due to preferences of convenience.
Debate this at your own peril yet again.
The Guttmacher Institute disagrees.
"Researchers from the Guttmacher Institute compared quantitative data from 2004 and 1987 surveys, and found that the main reasons women cited for ending pregnancies were the same in both: Having a baby would dramatically interfere with their education, work or ability to care for their dependents, or they could not afford a baby at the time."
https://www.guttmacher.org/perspectives50/womens-reasons-having-abortion
I said you were entitled to your opinion, so I am glad you feel good about it.
That is activism, not representation. Just because it is done in front of a court doesn't mean it ceases being activism. You can't represent someone or something if you don't know their actual views on the matter.
I put it in quotes, if you noticed. the "convenience" you are speaking of is typically financial reasons and actual real life reasons. I do not believe most abortions are done for the hell of it, if that is what you mean by "convenience".
So OBGYN doctor's groups give their medically qualified opinion and you brush it aside as "activism"?
You know what would probably have the largest ROI of any government program ever? Free contraceptives. We should be swimming in that stuff, every kind and everywhere. It would cut down on tons of problems and expenses.
I'll give you three guesses as to what group is against that, and your first two don't count.
Um, sorry but "financial reasons" is convenience. Deciding you're going to kill off a human life inside of you because it may strain the monthly budget is a matter of convenience and preference, not health related.
So, you're then telling me that you can't represent anyone that can't share their views. So Terry Schiavo didn't need representation, children who can't speak can't be represented, etc. Is this what you're saying?
You can argue anything is a convenience if you really want to. But I would say being able to afford to take care of both yourself and the child is pretty wide notion of what a "convenience" amounts to.
I am telling you that they weren't actually representing Terry Schiavo. Did she hire the lawyers? No. Do we know if she wanted to be kept alive or allowed to die? No. So how then can we say anyone was representing her when we have no idea her views on the matter? They were representing her parents wishes. But also, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. What I am saying, is it isn't representation, it is a form of activism.
This is where the follow-up case to Roe created the problem. Try defining "health of the mother".
Please, the Government provides quite a bit and there are a large number of people already raising children at that level.
Based on your quote, the Guttmacher Institute cited education, work, affordability, and the ability to care for a child.
I didn't see anything there about doing it because it was convenient.
We already discussed this, and if you are for the government assisting then good for you. But let's also be honest, the pro life and pro welfare crowds don't tend to be the same crowds in a general sense.
Really? You're not that stupid.
Having less money and time to go out on the weekend is a detriment to the health of the mother, therefore abortion is A-OK and this is totally not an example of "convenience" inspired abortion.
Of course I do, but advocacy isn't necessarily representation. Regardless, we are arguing semantics at this point, so lets move on.
But you're saying that right now that financial reasons are valid and I'm telling you right now that is not the case.
I am not contorting anything. My whole point is I think it should be the choice of the woman, at least until a certain point. That is a pretty straight forward position.
No, you're arguing that for someone to represent your basic right to life that they have to tell you that they want to assert their basic right to life. That is wrong. The right to life is inalienable and you don't have to assert it. Therefore, an attorney can certainly represent that side of an argument. I'm sorry but that is not activism.
It isn't that a man can't vote on things or have their opinions. It is the fact that it was almost entirely men, voting on something that has far more to do with women.
Latest posts
-
OT...Sod Companies, experiences and recommendations- Latest: UCFknights123
-
-
-
