Alabama bans abortion

[Yukaphile]

I dunno, is it really that rare? But I'm center left, again. Not radical/hardcore left. I can sympathize to the ideas of socialism and communism, give workers control over their own products, but basically, I also think that would require huge reform, and you can't do it instantly. Not without revolution, which is bad. I guess I'd say if it's possible to revise capitalism to be more fair, I'd support that. If it works.

Hey, be fair. I do think about that sometimes. It's why the world hurts.

[CmdrKing]

This ignores that one person involved is inconvenienced (and at slight risk of serious injury or death for several months), and in return the other person doesn't die.

18-life spent in servitude under penalty of imprisonment (which will also inevitably involve servitude) is "an inconvenience"?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Compared to death it is!

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

-Dave Barnhart, Christian Minister

[Darth Wedgius]

This ignores that one person involved is inconvenienced (and at slight risk of serious injury or death for several months), and in return the other person doesn't die.

18-life spent in servitude under penalty of imprisonment (which will also inevitably involve servitude) is "an inconvenience"?

Nine months is an inconvenience.

[Darth Wedgius]

And you make assumptions too, assuming the bill has positives, that it isn't all negative. Unless you're suggesting state Democrats compromised with them? Which is possible. I'm also not "bewailing the supposed motives of people," I just think this is a huge step backwards and whatever tiny costs we might have theoretically gained are going to be drowned out by all the bad it unleashes. Even if you wanna argue their motives aren't bad, the end result will lead to a worse world, with more people suffering, and a specific type of people among that. I have every right to feel upset about that.

I do. Again, this is depressing, and I'm not even attacking people here, just a mindset I hate that's going to make the world a darker place where more people suffer.

The unborn can't make sentient decisions. The woman, her partner, can. I think the potential for a new child to live should be superseded by the mother who is already here. And her partner, yes. And punching people is not a good comparison. This is about childbirth and pregnancy, people who wanna regulate it, for whatever motives and reasons we wanna debate, and how childbirth is a huge burden and trauma on women. We gotta be more sensitive to that kinda stuff.

The bill has factors that may be positives to the people behind it, protecting what they may see as human lives. That wouldn't be a positive?

And if someone has to be sentient for their life to count, we're in tricky territory. Anyone in a coma is pretty much up for grabs for whatever organs they have would be good for a transplant.

Except it doesn't even have an exemption for non-viable pregnancies, meaning it's deliberately designed to put the safety and welling of living people behind that of people that will never live.

No, because it does have exemptions fir the mother's life, which means it is deliberately designed not to put the safety of the mother into peril.

A pregnancy can go from safe to dire in a very short amount of time, by not allowing the immediate termination of a non-viable pregnancy it's increasing the risk of of the woman in question for absolutely no reason. It's roughly the equivalent of making it illegal to have heart medication, but allowing surgery after a heart attack has occurred.

That's fair. You're at least arguing against the bill rather than imagining it was written to oppress women.

[Yukaphile]

I think the big problem here is the hypocrisy by those in power who are anti-choice, yet don't follow the teachings of God himself when they tend to be highly religious. George Carlin summed it up best. "Oh these conservatives are all in favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn, but once you're born, (raises middle finger) you're on your own!" In that they don't wanna create a genuinely happy world for the baby that they're forcing to be born. I mean, a right-wing pro-corporate trickle-down economics policy just does not WORK. At all. It's favoring the elite and not the poor. I can understand that's where Fuzzy Necromancer is coming from. Someone who's pro-life or even anti-choice who is not hardcore religious and does not have power to implement law will be less hypocritical than those who are.

[CmdrKing]

Nine months is an inconvenience.

It is not nine months. Shipping children off to the orphanarium immediately upon birth is barely possible now, it will be actually impossible for all but the luckiest few very, very quickly under such a forced birth scenario: the state only has so much capacity for the unwanted. The sentence is at minimum 18 years until adulthood, but quite likely until you die.

Or of course an epidemic of infants in dumpsters and doorways to die of exposure, so you murdered an actual person and not mere fluid. But of course only so many will have the stealth to pull that off, tricky thing to carry for 9 months and give birth without the authorities catching wind to imprison you for it.

So no. It's a lifetime of servitude. Because you insist on attributing personhood to a non-sapient clump of cells that does not meaningfully qualify as a person.

[Yukaphile]

And that's the pure, simple, truth. A cluster of cells is not alive, period. Even my Socialist friend who is pro-life admits that, though he's more... of a soft-hearted idealist who mourns the loss of potential when it comes to life, even though logically speaking, you know one such life conceived will probably turn out bad, a rapist, murderer, thief, corrupt political tyrant, or so on. Can't wait till the Japanese finally invent the artificial womb, and what a shitstorm that is going to cause. I bet most of these so-called "pro-life" right-wingers will be against that too, even though logically speaking, you wanna force a new life to be born, even one conceived in suffering to a girl of non-legal age? Very well. But then, are you willing to have a machine do all the hard work, rather than force some poor woman or girl to bear the pain, trauma, and effort for nine months? I doubt very few of them would accept that, because it's "unnatural." Thus proving it's not about the potential of life like it is with my legitimately pro-life Socialist friend, but really about controlling women, thus it's being "anti-choice."

[clearspira]

Nine months is an inconvenience.

It is not nine months. Shipping children off to the orphanarium immediately upon birth is barely possible now, it will be actually impossible for all but the luckiest few very, very quickly under such a forced birth scenario: the state only has so much capacity for the unwanted. The sentence is at minimum 18 years until adulthood, but quite likely until you die.

Or of course an epidemic of infants in dumpsters and doorways to die of exposure, so you murdered an actual person and not mere fluid. But of course only so many will have the stealth to pull that off, tricky thing to carry for 9 months and give birth without the authorities catching wind to imprison you for it.

So no. It's a lifetime of servitude. Because you insist on attributing personhood to a non-sapient clump of cells that does not meaningfully qualify as a person.

You raise a good point. Anyone who knows history knows what happened before abortions were legal - coat hangers and doorways is the polite way to put it.
As I say, the sanctity of life argument is a crock of shit, because those who believe that would also care about unwanted children being abandoned.