Alabama outlaws abortion

When will progressives realise they are at war with Christian fundamentalists?
 
It bothers me greatly that any woman would be put in that positon to begin with. We desperately need to crack down on rape culture too.

Edit out>put

You're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from women.

The same white men who voted for this law will also want to make sure mother and child get no kind of healthcare.
 
Imagine knowing that there are real existential problems facing this whole world and there are people out there who are like “yeah stopping abortion for people who have no relation to me is the most important focus”. Asshole is an apt term for those types
 
You're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from women.

The same white men who voted for this law will also want to make sure mother and child get no kind of healthcare.
And you're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from children. There's an impasse here and we come down on different sides of it.

But at least we're aligned in saying proper healthcare should be available.
 
Absolutely fecking yes they should. Also, talking about support, you been taking in foster kids lately? I’ll wait
The house I can afford is not deemed big enough for a foster child in addition to my own two children. But in the meantime I have been donating to the appropriate charities, and using my vote, and voice, to support parties that don't demonise the poor, and that support families in difficult positon.
 
You're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from women.

The same white men who voted for this law will also want to make sure mother and child get no kind of healthcare.
...while tellng their mistresses to 'get rid of it' should they fall pregnant.
 
And you're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from children. There's an impasse here and we come down on different sides of it.

But at least we're aligned in saying proper healthcare should be available.

An early stage fetus is not yet a human being.
 
An early stage fetus is not yet a human being.
I prefer Singer’s argument to this.

Those who defend women's rights to abortion often refer to themselves as 'pro-choice' rather than as 'pro-abortion'. In this way they seek to bypass the issue of the moral status of the foetus, and instead make the right to abortion a question of individual liberty. But it cannot simply be assumed that a woman's right to have an abortion is a question of individual liberty, for it must first be established that the aborted foetus is not a being worthy of protection. If the foetus is worthy of protection, then laws against abortion do not create 'victimless crimes' as laws against homosexual relations between consenting adults do. So the question of the moral status of the foetus cannot be avoided.
The central argument against abortion may be put like this:

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human foetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.

Defenders of abortion usually deny the second premiss of this argument. The dispute about abortion then becomes a dispute about whether a foetus is a human being, or, in other words, when a human life begins. Opponents of abortion challenge others to point to any stage in the gradual process of human development that marks a morally significant dividing-line. Unless there is such a line, they say, we must either upgrade the status of the earliest embryo to that of the child, or downgrade the status of the child to that of the foetus; and no one advocates the latter course.

The most commonly suggested dividing-lines between the fertilized egg and the child are birth and viability. Both are open to objection. A prematurely born infant may well be less developed in these respects than a foetus nearing the end of its normal term, and it seems peculiar to hold that we may not kill the premature infant, but may kill the more developed foetus. The point of viability varies according to the state of medical technology, and, again, it is odd to hold that a foetus has a right to life if the pregnant woman lives in London, but not if she lives in New Guinea.

Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life. Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly.
 
The US is a broken country. It really cannot be overstated.

While this may well be true, it's worth pointing out that part of the UK (Northern Ireland) already had abortion restrictions as bad or worse than the ones Alabama has just introduced. I don't think a lot of the people in the UK who are angered by Alabama's decision actually realise they have an example of the same problem much closer to home.
 
Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.
eugh
 
While this may well be true, it's worth pointing out that part of the UK (Northern Ireland) already had abortion restrictions as bad or worse than the ones Alabama has just introduced. I don't think a lot of the people in the UK who are angered by Alabama's decision actually realise they have an example of the same problem much closer to home.
Sure, I'm not British though.
And I'd argue that reinstating something like this is slightly different than having it leftover from the past.
 
Such compassion. :lol:

I assume you don't have a sister? I'd love you to tell her that and see her response if you did.
My sister is pro-life. And she's grateful that my wife is pro-life too, or her niece may not have been given a chance to live. Would you like to come mansplain feminism to them?
 
My sister is pro-life. And she's grateful that my wife is pro-life too, or her niece may not have been given a chance to live. Would you like to come mansplain feminism to them?

if she thinks that being pro choice means your wife would be desperately going around getting pregnant so she can kill all the babies then she needs a lot more than feminism explained to her
 
if she thinks that being pro choice means your wife would be desperately going around getting pregnant so she can kill all the babies then she needs a lot more than feminism explained to her
Does "mansplain" work as your summoning or something?
 
My sister is pro-life. And she's grateful that my wife is pro-life too, or her niece may not have been given a chance to live. Would you like to come mansplain feminism to them?

So you've actually discussed the scenario of her being raped and she'd still decide to keep the baby? Or are you assuming she would because shes pro-life? Honestly interested.
 
Sure, I'm not British though.
And I'd argue that reinstating something like this is slightly different than having it leftover from the past.

Oh yeah I know you're not, it was more of a general point off the back of your post.

And while you're right that reinstating something is different, people in the UK/Ireland have a greater chance of effecting change in NI than they do in Alabama. It's a shame that NI's abortion laws don't come under more scrutiny from elsewhere within the UK.
 
I prefer Singer’s argument to this.

Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life. Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly.

Newly born babies are not rational either. For the record I fall on the pro-choice side but I'm not sure this is a convincing argument.
 
fd8d92f5ab33104a35b5bdaca6e30d32

totally human
 
So you've actually discussed the scenario of her being raped and she'd still decide to keep the baby? Or are you assuming she would because shes pro-life? Honestly interested.
My wife has looked me in the eye and told me that she could never abort. I didn't play 21 scenarios with her, but she stressed the "never". Before giving birth to our children, she also made me swear to prioritise them if a decision had to be made any point. Thankfully it never came to that.
 
My wife has looked me in the eye and told me that she could never abort. I didn't play 21 scenarios with her, but she stressed the "never". Before giving birth to our children, she also made me swear to prioritise them if a decision had to be made any point. Thankfully it never came to that.

Are you all religious? Please understand i'm not being patronising here, but the UK seems so very different to America on this situation.
 
Oh yeah I know you're not, it was more of a general point off the back of your post.

And while you're right that reinstating something is different, people in the UK/Ireland have a greater chance of effecting change in NI than they do in Alabama. It's a shame that NI's abortion laws don't come under more scrutiny from elsewhere within the UK.
Ah right, no disagreements there.
 
Newly born babies are not rational either. For the record I fall on the pro-choice side but I'm not sure this is a convincing argument.
Yes, he expanded on it in his Utilitarian paper, in which infanticide under some circumstances is desirable

. In Practical Ethics(1979), Singer explains that the value of a life should be based on traits such as rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness. ‘Defective infants lack these characteristics,’ he wrote. ‘Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.’
 
Interesting you didn't opt for the 12 week old aborted child. I've no interest in posting that either, but I'm not the one denying their humanity.
fetus.jpg

picture of a resin doll painted and used as shameless propaganda which stupid people who think jizzy eggs are people believed was a real human being
 
Are you all religious? Please understand i'm not being patronising here, but the UK seems so very different to America on this situation.
We are to differing degrees. I can't speak for their motivations, but I am not a good enough Christian to take the religious view on this. I believe there is sufficient grounds for an atheist to be pro-life. I'm also pro-equal marriage so I don't let the church dictate my opinions.
fetus.jpg

picture of a resin doll painted and used as shameless propaganda which stupid people who think jizzy eggs are people believed was a real human being
So still not a graphic image of the reality of an abortion? Just a random fake image that I didn't allude to?

I may need a different man to explain feminism to the women in my life.
 
Yes, he expanded on it in his Utilitarian paper, in which infanticide under some circumstances is desirable

At least he's logically consistent, I'll give him that.

Now of course bringing him or his train of thought into any debate on this side of the water dooms the pro-choice movement.
 
Excuse my ignorance, but will it be possible to cross the border to a less backwater state and then have the abortion?
Like modern Mississippi next door? Hah...

To get to a less backwater state you'd have to travel halfway across a very large country. They aim to make it all but impossible for anyone (except the well-off) .
 
They also rejected giving babies free healthcare for the first 3 years of their life. Image being so brainwashed by religion that you think these people are your allies.
 
Like modern Mississippi next door? Hah...

To get to a less backwater state you'd have to travel halfway across a very large country. They aim to make it all but impossible for anyone (except the well-off) .

Good time to bring back the Underground Railroad. There's freedom on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. Or Canada, if you're in Alabama (Ohio banned abortion too).