Alabama bans abortion

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

^ relevant

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Sources and sarcasm aside...this really depresses me. My mother and grandmother fought to defend women's rights to safe abortion. I am so, so scared that we're going back to this.

Scared is an exaggeration surely.

No, it really isn't. This is something that scares me on the level of "what if same sex marriage gets outlawed again?"

Except that is not what you wrote. Not even slightly.

No it is not what I wrote, but I am bringing it up as an example of something else that really scares me. Comprende?

No, because the link between abortion and gay marriage is tangential at best. There is plenty I can bring up as ''something else'' that scares me but they would not be relevant to a conversation about abortion.

For Hecate's sake, I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between the issues, I was trying to convince you of the sincerity and intensity of my emotions, you walnut!

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The Reagan administration included actively ignoring the AIDS crisis for the sake of wiping out gays

Any evidence of that motive?

I mean they laughed as the it killed people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... a99877bafb

People laugh at tragedies all the time.

People don't laugh at tragedies? When I was in high school I heard jokes about victims of the Ethiopian famine, by people who didn't evince any hostility toward famine victims or Ethiopians in general.

People laugh at tragedies. The reach was you suggesting that Reagan was laughing at the tragedy as some way of coping, insofar as he felt remorse for his destructive apathy, rather than the satisfaction of a job well-done, you disingenuous, aggravating person.

You damn well know what I mean and I feel personally insulted by your efforts to turn around and go "Who, me?" or defend those doing the same.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Darth, to follow up, at a certain point, it doesn't matter whether Reagan was motivated by active, malicious hate, or inexcusable moral apathy. It still comes down to a disregard for the lives of dirty faggots.

Now it's time for some fun literature on the subject!

Onion Article without a Punchline
https://local.theonion.com/abused-12-ye ... 1834787176

Decades Old Article that Shouldn't be Still Relevant But Totally is
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phi ... homson.htm

The Good Old Days
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 57726.html

[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.

[CmdrKing]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/wh ... a-alabama/

Oh hey a historical case. That has all the complications mentioned AND MORE.

[Darth Wedgius]

Darth, to follow up, at a certain point, it doesn't matter whether Reagan was motivated by active, malicious hate, or inexcusable moral apathy. It still comes down to a disregard for the lives of dirty faggots.

Now it's time for some fun literature on the subject!

Onion Article without a Punchline
https://local.theonion.com/abused-12-ye ... 1834787176

Decades Old Article that Shouldn't be Still Relevant But Totally is
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phi ... homson.htm

The Good Old Days
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 57726.html

Since the subject was restricting speech to stop hate movements, it's plenty relevant to that.

Further, from 1981 to 1988, 148,085 are recorded to have died from AIDS in the U.S. in total. About 5 times that die from heart disease every year. The Reagan administration should have emphasized the use of condoms and not sharing needles, but that should have been pretty common knowledge anyway. As far as actual funding goes, annual AIDS related funding was $44 million in 1983, 2 years after he took office, and was $1.6 billion in 1988, an increase of over 3,600 percent.

[Darth Wedgius]

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.

Ah, but now you're conflating two things. *Coma* is not necessarily the same as *Brain Dead*. A coma patient may one day wake up, and so their sentience still exists, but merely suspended. And so the preservation of their life has value.
A brain dead patient, one who's suffered sufficient damage that they'll never recover? I'd argue that it's keeping their body functioning artificially that's cruel. While we assign the dead a certain level of bodily autonomy, and so harvesting them for organs is illegal, if we can say with a high degree of certainty that a) yes they are truly braindead and b) they have consented (or someone with power of attorney can consent in their name) then yes, using their organs to help those in need is a far better fate than keeping their husk breathing.

So while a fundamentalist may consider fetuses as human beings, they're just factually incorrect for any useful definition of personhood. So much so I tend to doubt their sincerity of belief. Which is why intent entered the debate to start with.

Moreover your entire defense is based on a false premise: that we can value the life of a fetus and the person carrying it equally. If we value a fetus as a full human with all attendant rights, then necessarily we place it above the person carrying it: they are forced to assume responsibility for another human life for a minimum period of 9 months, with attendant bodily harm, assuming that their medical costs are fully covered and that someone willing to take full custody of the eventual child is in line at the delivery room.
Neither of which is ever true.
Indeed the degree of responsibility we assign to a birthing parent is so high that, when the parent/child relationship is not entered voluntarily, it easily constitutes a form of slavery.

In order for a fetus and its carrier to hold equal rights, you would have to eliminate the latter role. If, for example, artificial out-of-body wombs existed, then yes, a fetus could be assigned personhood without necessarily diminishing the rights of another person. But considering we're probably a century or two away from that technological leap, and even in that far off time it is intensely unlikely that such a procedure would be affordable and widespread, basing law on that scenario is foolhardy.

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.

[Draco Dracul]

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.

[clearspira]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPxi5wzmPRA

A left winger openly quoting Carlin is... rare it has to be said. Fair dues to you though.

He makes a good point as ever. How many of you reading this who believe in restricting abortion thought about the hundreds of thousands of starving babies and children throughout the world the last time you ate a meal? I mean REALLY thought about it as the burger graced your lips. You didn't, be honest. You ate, and ate, and ate, and felt no guilt at all.

And now suddenly, despite all of this constant and wilful disregard for actual living people, we are to believe that you think so deeply of the rights of something that has more in common with a tumour than an actual human being.

PS If you did think about it, did the words ''I am looking after my own country'' leave your lips? I have heard that defence often, because somehow, ''suffering foreign children are less important than our unborn fetuses'' is honestly what you are saying? That doesn't sound very Christian or moral to me. The sanctity of life has a core of hypocrisy, my friends. There are too many ways to justify double standards to yourself.