Alabama Abortion Bill
- Thread starter bqknight
- Start date
You could probably make the case that for people in certain circumstances it isnt practical to raise a child. That still doesn't diminish the fact that they were aware of the possibility of pregnancy when they chose to have sex. I don't want anyone to have to carry regret or undue burden because of poor choices, but killing a baby is a little bit too far for me to justify.
They are representing a position, not a person. That makes it activism or advocacy, but again, this is a stupid argument about semantics and I don't really care anymore.
Exactly proving 85's point. Is avoiding a "tough go at it" enough to kill someone to avoid?
If you've been following the national trend in the way legislators across many states have been restricting abortion access, you would not be playing the 'convenience' card.
The word also implies that women are stopping by their local clinic for an abortion with the same carefree spirit as they would going to the local parlor to get a pedicure.
Neither are true. But nevertheless, let the spin doctoring continue.
Good lord, activism and legal advocacy or representation are vastly different things. Done with it now.
First off, saying "kill someone" is a loaded phrase that not everyone agrees with. Not everyone looks at it as killing someone, which is basically the whole cause for this debate in the first place. So to some people, who don't see at "killing someone" they might feel an abortion is worth not having to upend their life.
That is a fair point about the use of the word convenience. However, you're also seeing marches where thousands of women are aligning with the position that abortions should be convenient and frequent. So it's not totally out of character to represent it that way.
From a life or death factor, there are certainly plenty that don't want to give up their lifestyles to raise the child they conceived. That is wrong. Period.
Nobody is saying that it's a carefree decision. At best, its the result of being numb.
And that's the crux of the problem I have with your entire position. That is a human life that was conceived. To call it otherwise is obfuscation to weaken the consequences of ending that human life. Let's all agree on that and then have the discussion on the merits of both sides.
Not everyone agrees with you. This is the entire debate (and also why I typically avoid these topics, because they go no where). Some people think human life begins at conception, while others think it begins at viability, and a smaller percentage think it begins at birth. You can be as stringent as you want in your views, but not everyone is going to see it your way.
Last edited:
So let’s use the scientific definition.
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
Yeah, NOW conservatives are willing to embrace SCIENCE!!!
It's a shame so many of us still use that antiquated notion of "birthdays."
Since life begins at the moment of conception, it's our Conception Day date, not such a meaningless date like when we were born, that we should be celebrating from now on.
Sing along, "Happy Conception Day to you..."
I am not trying to change your mind, you can have your views. But you know this isnt the argument. You know it is a philisophical argument that people are making. You seem to go by if it has living DNA, then it is a human. Which is fine. But other people go by, if their is no consciousness or characteristics that separate humans from the rest of life, is it human life at that point? Obviously an abortion kills living cells nobody is arguing that point. But we dont have humanity based on simply physical chacteristics. We are different than the rest of life because of intelligence, ability to reason, etc etc. Early term pregnancies dont involve anything other than the DNA. The cortex doesnt form until about 6 months gestation. Before that time, the things that honestly make human life different and precious, simply doesnt exist.
Yes. WHy? I am assuming you think it counters my argument. I dont think it counters my argument at all. Like I said, nobody is denying that a zygote is a living thing with living cells.
The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.
The bolded part is precisely the point of argument in this debate. And your article clearly says it doesnt take a stand on that one way or the other. The scientific part isnt the debate, it is the ethical questions of abortion that are the center of the debate.
Last edited:
leftists after a school shooting: THE BLOOD IS ON REPUBLICAN HANDS HOW MANY INNOCENT KIDS HAVE TO DIE THIS COULD BE PREVENTED
leftists on abortion: you can't take away my right to kill babies, nazi lmao
leftists on abortion: you can't take away my right to kill babies, nazi lmao
Two completely different issues, but if that is really the argument you want to go with, it can obviously be reversed and of course people care say that Republicans can more about fetuses than children. I am not saying that, but by your logic, it would be an easy argument to make.
Alabama also has the highest infant mortality rate in the country, similar #s to China and Oman. Black infants in Alabama die at rates similar to Iran and Syria. So maybe if they care about babies so much they should focus on providing more and better healthcare to infants.
https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.co...ow-birthweight-racial-disparities/1292164002/
They are 2 different issues, and thats exactly why it points out how inconsistent lefties are on their attempts at taking the moral high ground.
Republicans are the ones making this a moral high ground issue. Being pro choice isnt being pro abortion. It is simply allowing people to determine for themselves. That isnt taking a moral stance, it is leaving it up to individuals to make their own decision based on their personal moral and ethical stance.
But like I said earlier. I hope Republicans are also willing for their tax dollars to support healthcare and basic support for these children, especially since 4 out of the top 5 states with the highest infant mortality are all Southern Republican states. If not, then it really isnt pro life stance more than it is pro birth.
And they are 2 different issues, which is exactly why they arent comparable. Regardless, if you think they are comparable then I assume you also take the stance that Republicans care about fetuses more than children getting shot up in schools? i dont see how you could possibly argue otherwise based on your position.
And BTW and to look at this from a political angle, this isnt quite as partisan an issue as people think. Close to 40% of Republicans are pro choice. It isnt a majority, but 40% is a significant #. It will be interesting the see the ramifications of this in 2020, because even losing a small percentage of the vote could completely flip elections to Democrats in many races.
Last edited:
I don't think being against killing babies has anything to do with trying to take a moral high ground, that's just common sense.
Abortion is framed as feminist, women's right issue when nearly half of women oppose abortion. So the inference is that by being against abortion, you are a misogynist that doesn't think the genders are equal.
Even the language of the issue is made to be a euphemism for baby killing. Its]'s never "pro-abortion", its "pro-choice." How about choose to keep your legs closed, choose to use a condom, choose to use birth control, or choose to accept responsibility?
No Republican is "pro school shooting". Name a school shooting that wasn't stopped by a good guy with a gun, or that didn't take place on a gun-free zone.
Pew says that 60% of women are for 100% legal abortions and only 36% are completely against it, which makes that 64% are for abortion in most cases.
Furthermore, younger people make up a larger percentage of the pro-choice movement. You know, the ones having to actually make them decision about abortion as opposed to the ones who aren’t getting pregnant.
Of course it does. Even the way you frame it "killing babies" is used as a moral high ground issue since they are fetuses at that point, not babies.
That makes no sense. If it is a 50/50 thing, then by your logic you can be a misogynist either position you hold, since you will be against roughly half of womens position either way. SO that is ridiculous to say being pro choice is a misygonistic position. But it still doesnt take away from it being a womans rights issue. The right, is the right to choose. No woman is forced to have an abortion.
It is pro choice because that is precisely what it is. No one is forcing people to have abortions, and nobody is venturing out in hopes of having abortions. Pro choice is letting people decide for themselves. "Pro Life" has much more of a moral connatation than pro choice.
I am not saying REpublicans are for school shootings, but I can certainly make the argument that they dont put much effort into stopping them, and it is a fact the gun sales go up after mass shootings, and people do profit off them.
I was about to look up his #s since he didnt provide any sort of link or source. I was curious if his #s were accurate.
You literally said that early abortions only kill DNA thus implying that it’s not a human life at that point. That it wasn’t actually human life until later when some other threshold has been passed. Then you copied an assertion that scientifically human life begins at conception and tried to argue that it’s the value on that life and not the fact that it is a human that we’re arguing. But it’s not. You and others have been arguing it’s not a life at conception and thus has no value and we don’t have to feel bad about removing it.
The scientific part has been part of the debate for decades. You can’t just wipe it away and try to make it an ethical debate when you just made an argument that it’s just some cells and DNA.
They weren’t.
He failed to acknowledge that there are legitimate medical reasons to get an abortion. Furthermore, I’d be willing to bet that he hasn’t walked into the courtroom for every traffic ticket he’s ever gotten and said “your honor I accept full responsibility for this infraction, I’m fully at fault!”
I said they dont have the characteristics of what we consider humanity. Thought, reason, consciousness, etc etc. Society puts different values on different forms of life, whether that be human, animals, plants, etc. That is the debate.
The scientific part is not the debate. Nobody argues that a zygote isnt a living thing.
Wrong, the majority of women (59%) think abortion is morally wrong, and the majority of women (51%) think abortion does more harm than good.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/d...ist_Poll_Abortion_Tables_January_2017_(2).pdf
sorry for bringing better sources
Its always interesting when people blame the woman for getting pregnant. Arent guys just as irresponsible for knocking up a woman who is willing to have an abortion? So yeah, that argument is always odd to me.
You're 100% correct, so I logically decided to murder the police officer before he drove off so I could avoid facing the responsibility for my actions.
Thanks for the neat analogy!
LOL owned by his personal source.
Furthermore, that data is at least 2 years old. Pew sampled in 2018.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
41% isnt nearly half with regards to political issues. It is significant, but it isnt nearly half. If a candidate loses an election 55% to 41%, nobody says "it was a close race and nearly half the voters voted for each candidate".
I am interested to see the political ramifications of this. I always thought abortion was a red meat issue to win Evangelical support, but nothing would ever really change with it. Now that things are changing, it will be interesting to see what percentage of moderate Republicans and undecideds will think this is a bridge to far and vote Democrat.
I was shocked to read that Catholics are majority pro-choice. Only evangelical Protestants we’re majority pro-life.
That is surprising. I do think Catholicism is religion a lot of people identify with because that is how they grew up, but maybe don't really practice it as much when they become adults. But still suprising.
It isn't surprising to me. I'm not catholic but i meet with a monsignor every week to talk about faith, life, whatever. This is a guy who was high enough in the vatican that he was their UN ambassador. Even he will readily admit that there is a problem with catholic parishioners just being sunday Christians. Its the same with every faith, but really tough for a faith structure like Catholicism to figure out what to do about a large portion of their membership holding a position so antithetical to one of the strongest positions the church has.
Similar threads
