Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 3700 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3186
It is the exact scenario that Tim brought up, which I replied to. I literally quoted him.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
brk.b | dis | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | relx | tap | tfsl | vz | wm


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
2. A blanket statement like this is nonsensical. Certain things are in our interest. Letting future citizens live, is. Murdering Arabs, is wrong. But if what you mean is going to Afghanistan and cleaning house, that's a different story. If 93/100 people living in a village were known for a fact to be heinous criminals, but your only way to safeguard your community was to wipe out all 100, do you do it? We live in a society were the left has taught us that if there is 1/100 who is possibly OK, we are hateful monsters for making the logical decisions. Screw them and political correctness.
The only blanket statement is Costanza changing my original quip. Try reading the entire context because your response is out of scope.

3. No one forced her to take the d*** either. Choices. Consequences. That's life. Live with it.
Seriously Greg, I question your intelligence:

If someone is the innocent victim of a horrible crime (rape)

No one forced her to take the d*** either

The rape scenario is different but always what the left goes to in order to try and justify killing babies. As in my first example, it is the 1/100 scenario, that the lest uses to justify their position.

It is estimated that over 2.5M rapes occur each year in the U.S. with 85% not being reported...often they are familial, spousal, close friend, etc.  Even conservative estimates are 1 in 50 girls are raped at one time or another in the U.S.  Before men legislate how women treat their body, maybe these same men should live the life of a girl/woman and experience what they've experienced.  Cheers!
No man is a failure who has friends!


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463

Your argument is nonsensical!  If a legislative body decides that only 9-year old boys can perform believe that decision is ok and representative of the population’s opinion?  The irrational continuation of your thought would be “this impacts 9-year old boys, their lives and careers.  Should patients actually have any say when the legislators were elected?!”

Of the 640,000 abortions less than 2% occur when the fetus has a chance of survival...24 weeks. 

Science also recognizes patients that are brain dead but have a heart beat.  Are you suggesting any form of palliative care, assisted suicide or mercy killing is completely wrong...including pulling the plug on brain-dead patients?  Cheers!

What in the world are you talking about?  I will not waste time trying to have a rational discussion with someone who isn't.  Good day.

When Pat Robertson thinks a conservative policy and law has gone too far, I'm perfectly fine with you considering me irrational.

No man is a failure who has friends!


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
I’m curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

Top 5 positions: ELF IAM GCM.NT/GCM PIF EFR.DB


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
Anyone read Freakonomics? There was a clear correlation between allowing abortions and a decrease of crimes rates about 18 years later found. The moral issue aside, it makes sense that unwanted kids have a high probability of becoming criminals.

I think we we also see it widening the social devide - middle class / rich parent teenager (who is much less likely to get into this predicament to begin with )  gets an airplane ticket to a “medical vacation”, poor teenage gets gets to toughen it out. College admission scandal all over.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
On the topic of "killing" babies in neonatal intensive care units.

In 1997, there was a landmark article published showing that treatments were actually withheld and withdrawn in many cases. The article showed how a delicate and humane balance had been reached in dealing with very difficult situations. Since then, criteria have been defined/refined in order to offer a decision framework and legal protection for treating teams and parents.

And this goes much further than the braindead child. Criteria include significant brain damage, predictable short term death with suffering and even "no purpose" or "unbearable" situations when the child would survive but with an expected very poor quality of life. In these cases, where parents largely tend to agree with the treating teams, life-sustaining treatments including respiratory support can be withdrawn, which leads to the end of life for that particular baby. When the breathing tube is removed, the path to the end can be a very difficult experience for all involved. Before judging here, perhaps helpful to wonder about the experience if you have not gone through such an event yourself. There exists now a legal framework with case-law that reflects the evolving mindset on the topic. The US uses, on the surface, more stringent criteria but, in practice, the outcome is very similar overall in developed countries. There have been amazing developments in neonatal care but the advances are testing the limits imposed by evolution (if you believe in the evolution theory).

Also helpful to note that if you consult in a fertility clinic, there is a strong possibility that "extra" fertilized eggs will be indirectly or directly "discarded" (the US has very porous regulation in that area).

Also, if you support the use (or use it yourself), one of the backup mechanism for the birth control pill is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (with its own unique genome and all).

This may be food for thought for those using the absolutist definition of the sanctity of life and having a low threshold to use the murder terminology.


  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Anyone read Freakonomics? There was a clear correlation between allowing abortions and a decrease of crimes rates about 18 years later found. The moral issue aside, it makes sense that unwanted kids have a high probability of becoming criminals.

I think we we also see it widening the social devide - middle class / rich parent teenager (who is much less likely to get into this predicament to begin with )  gets an airplane ticket to a “medical vacation”, poor teenage gets gets to toughen it out. College admission scandal all over.

Agreed with Spekultius, this correlation (legalized abortion & decrease crime rate effect) is well documented. These redneck senators are out of their minds and we are in the year of the lord 2019! Are they also planning on bringing back the Holy Office of the Inquisition?


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Wonder how many of these anti abortion people agree with capital punishment?

How about shooting immigrants at the border?

How many have assault rifles in their homes to protect themselves from those pesky immigrants?

Wonder how people supporting this bill would feel if their sister, mother, wife was raped and impregnated by an illegal?

Assault rifles have been banned since the 80's.

And for the record the 2nd amendment scales with technology. It's the same reason the first amendment covers more than smoke signals and carrier pigeons.

What a time to be alive!

Assualt rifles are banned?  whut, Whut, WHUT?  I don't think that is the case.  Perhaps in CA perhaps?  They certainly are not banned in TX or MI.

Beginning of time Murder Ban
1911 Sullivan Act
1934 Natiional Firearms Act
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1939 United States v. Miller (ban on sawed off shotguns)
1967 CA mulford Act
1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
1968 Gun Control Act (Banned guns that have no "sporting purpose")(specifically bombs, grenades, mines, and machine guns)
1972 ATF Created
1976 Arms Export Control Act
1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act
1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (Prevent civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns and banned silencers and silencer parts)
1988 Undetectable Firearms Act
1989 CA Assault Weapon Ban
1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act
1993 Brady Handgun Violence Act (Established the Instant Criminal Background Check System) ****
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Assault weapon ban. Banned 19 "military style or "copy cat"
assault weapons including AR-15's unless lawefully posessed based on Federal law)
1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act
2012 Obama Executive Order Criminal Background Checks
2013 NY Safety Act
[i]2013 California Assault Weapon Ban (Banned Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines. [/b]
Quote Summary: "There are 100mil HC Mags and this would be ineffective in keeping these out of the hands of criminals)[/b][/i]
2013 Conneticut Children's Safety Act
2014 IL Assault Weapon Ban
2014 CO Magazine Ban/Universal Background Check
2014 Obama Executive Order Import Ban of Saiga/AK47Sporting Rifle
2019 Bump Stock ban

There is a handful more between 2014 and 2019 but I honestly get tired of updating the list. Prohibition of any kind has never worked and will never ever work. Notice the quote in the 2013 Cal Assault Weapon ban.

We can't keep drugs out of super max prisons, yet you want to trust the government to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Absurd and ridiculous. All these laws do is hurt law abiding citizens.

Lastly, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon. Anyone who is educated about firearms should know this. AR stands for "Armalite." Assault Rifles or weapons by definition are fully automatic weapons. And they are used to suppress fire of "the enemy" as troops advance. An AR-15 does neither of those things. And machine guns have been banned in the US since the 30's and again in the 80's and then the 90's....

Notice in the list above the absurd number of laws that target handguns. Yet here we are in 2019 and handguns are the most used murder weapon  by about 1000%.

So we can keep on going with laws and regulations, but it wont ever work. It hasn't worked under the strictest governments and dictatorships and it certainly wont work in America.


A band-aid doesn't cure an infection. It simply covers it up. If we want to fix the violence issue in America, we need to change the culture. I think the "ban the guns" and the "gun bro" culture are equally harmful to this country. But they are direct results of each other. We shouldn't be glorifying the use of guns but instead teaching their purpose. They are a very powerful tool that needs to be respected. I think Sweden has a great model. They actually have a very similar per capital "assault rifle" and fire arms in general ownership rate. Yet their shootings are extremely low (basically non-existent). Lots of this is due to education. Children engage in shooting contests and firearm education from a young age. They are raised to view guns as a tool and not a toy. People should become proficient with a firearm. Learn to master it and learn how to use it. But when you're done, store it and lock it away like you would any other tool. Don't go posting selfies all over Facebook showing how "badass" you are with your AR-15. That doesn't promote a safe gun culture. Likewise banning them and fear mongering also doesn't promote a safe gun culture. It simply empowers criminals.

Sorry to sidetrack the conversation (kinda)


  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3002
It is amazing that some folks who yell pretty hard on this thread seem so uninformed regarding rape.

Ever heard of next day pills?

Crazy cheap. The government should make these free and educate people on using them. Would save a ton of money and the whole ethical debate.



  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
I say it with all my conviction: abortion must remain the exception, the ultimate recourse for situations without a way-out. But how to tolerate it without it losing this character of exceptionalism, without society appearing to encourage it? I would like first of all to make you share a conviction of a woman – I’m sorry to do it in front of this Assembly that is almost exclusively made up of men: no woman resorts to abortion light-heartedly. You only have to listen to women. It is always a drama and will always remain a drama. This is why, if the project which is presented to you takes into account the existing de facto situation, if it admits the possibility of a termination of pregnancy, it is to control it and, as much as possible, to dissuade the woman from it. 
–  Simone Veil, Holocaust survivor & Ex-Minister Who wrote France’s Abortion Law - 26/11/1974