Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 8165 times)

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3248
Paul, you're lacking some nuance here.

I've already addressed the legal/illegality item a few posts up. I'll repeat that I think the current framework we have gets us pretty close. You want to argue the first 3 months, 2.5 months, 3.5 months, whatever - this is an area where accuracy is impossible because there is no 'right' answer, and certainly not a universal one.

Again with the point on aborting a fetus vs. killing a 1-year old. The lack of nuance is stunning - but I think you are being purposefully obtuse for argument's sake :) There are differences between a 3 month fetus, and a newborn. There are even more differences between a 1 week old handful of cells and a newborn. To say they are equivalent is silly.



First, when do you feel abortion should be illegal? lc, safety, I'd like for you guys to answer, too, please.

What's your definition of life? Like I said, if the fetus isn't living...I don't know what it's doing then. I see no reason to abort if it's not living.

Also, why do you feel laws against abortion are against a woman's right? Does the mother have the "right" to kill her 1 day old baby? It's the same DNA, same human as she had before - just older. So if you give the mother the right to terminate her child, what gives you the ability to take away that same "right" later on? We're talking about a change in location here, after all.

If you give her the right and ability to do it once, why are you forcing your views and values on her at a later date to not terminate the child? She brought it into the world. Why should she not be able to take it out of the world? Look at all these men trying to tell women what they can and can't do!

Since the baby is just part of her body (as LC and watcht seem to think), why are you telling her what to do with her body even if this body part is 5 years old?

I'm not Catholic, for what it's worth. But, I do try to be fair and rational. ;)
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2826
You obviously have not read or misread my last few posts in this topic, because I address every point you raise.

It takes quite the person to force a rape victim to birth their rapist's child.

It's the old quote, "Left alone, good people will generally do good things. Bad people will generally do bad things. But to get a good man to do bad things, you need religion/"



that is because you are not the one being killed
So you're OK telling rape victims they must give birth to that fetus?

I am completely comfortable having laws that forbid the killing of an innocent human being.  Rape is sick but so is the intentional taking of an innocent human being.  You may think my response is cold, but I would contend the opposite is the case - supporting the killing of an innocent baby is cold.)  I would gladly pay higher taxes or voluntary give to help them emotionally, financially, etc.

Let's be clear, this is not the real issue for those who are pro-abortion rights or they would agree to accept an abortion ban except in the cases of rape and incest (And health of the mother).  The truth for nearly all is they want abortion for any reason the mother chooses, and for many, whenever the mother chooses.       

So you're okay with killing innocent unborn children because their mother doesn't want them, thinks they would be inconvenient, or may have a disability?  Why not a newborn?


I know this wasn't directed at me, if one is an atheist, it is irrational to believe in objective morality or absolute human rights.  In fact, there is no reason to trust one's conscience. One may say "this doesn't feel right...I shouldn't do this" but my leader told me to do it, so I will. The government determines human rights and the government or the individual determine morality - based on the whims of their nature. When you get away from these basic beliefs of morality and human rights, it's very easy to have mass killings or to create ideologies like Communism or Fascism.  There is nothing greater than our Government and she shall we worship!

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076

I think this was relatively fair.



Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2826
Paul, you're lacking some nuance here.

I've already addressed the legal/illegality item a few posts up. I'll repeat that I think the current framework we have gets us pretty close. You want to argue the first 3 months, 2.5 months, 3.5 months, whatever - this is an area where accuracy is impossible because there is no 'right' answer, and certainly not a universal one.

Again with the point on aborting a fetus vs. killing a 1-year old. The lack of nuance is stunning - but I think you are being purposefully obtuse for argument's sake :) There are differences between a 3 month fetus, and a newborn. There are even more differences between a 1 week old handful of cells and a newborn. To say they are equivalent is silly.



First, when do you feel abortion should be illegal? lc, safety, I'd like for you guys to answer, too, please.

What's your definition of life? Like I said, if the fetus isn't living...I don't know what it's doing then. I see no reason to abort if it's not living.

Also, why do you feel laws against abortion are against a woman's right? Does the mother have the "right" to kill her 1 day old baby? It's the same DNA, same human as she had before - just older. So if you give the mother the right to terminate her child, what gives you the ability to take away that same "right" later on? We're talking about a change in location here, after all.

If you give her the right and ability to do it once, why are you forcing your views and values on her at a later date to not terminate the child? She brought it into the world. Why should she not be able to take it out of the world? Look at all these men trying to tell women what they can and can't do!

Since the baby is just part of her body (as LC and watcht seem to think), why are you telling her what to do with her body even if this body part is 5 years old?

I'm not Catholic, for what it's worth. But, I do try to be fair and rational. ;)

Yes, a lack of nuance can sometimes help elucidate things better.

Oh I agree, I can tell you that there is a huge difference from a newborn and a 2 year old. There is also a huge difference in the 2 year old, or 20 or 40 or 105 year old. They are all one and the same human being though.

So,  personally, do you feel that abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester (or thereabouts)? Do you think that one should be able to elect an abortion regardless of reasons?
Paul

Parsad

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8518

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!
No man is a failure who has friends!

Tim Eriksen

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!

What about them?  I am not a lawyer.  You have the Establishment clause that prevents the government from establishing a state religion or unduly favoring one.  And there is the free-exercise clause which guarantees that people can exercise their religion.  Thus the Governor cannot be prevented from mentioning God.   

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3248
So,  personally, do you feel that abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester (or thereabouts)? Do you think that one should be able to elect an abortion regardless of reasons?
Personally I think after consciousness has been developed you are talking about a human life. In terms of legality, I think after the first trimester there should be some justifying circumstances such as the jeopardy of the mother's life, or abnormal development of the fetus.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | tap | v | vz | wm

cwericb

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
“Personally I think after consciousness has been developed you are talking about a human life. In terms of legality, I think after the first trimester there should be some justifying circumstances such as the jeopardy of the mother's life, or abnormal development of the fetus. “

That sounds about right. But people will believe what they want to believe and it is unlikely any minds will be changed here. However, I suppose that any discussion that stimulates thought, if not reconsideration, is not really a waste of time.

I just find it hard to believe that in the 21st century a law such as Alabama has brought forward could actually become a reality.
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason. - Mark Twain

wachtwoord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Quote
I never understand bans on abortion and suicide exist while countries maintain to uphold their constitution above all else. Isn't the right for self-determination in there? Banning abortion and suicide is in direct conflict with that.

How is the discussion here longer than what I just wrote? Oh yeah people are irrational, emotional and inconsistent. Carry on I guess .... :(

Suicide is self harm, where abortion is taking the life of another being. I don't see them on the same playing field. The argument is that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be guaranteed to that unborn child whom was forced into the world.

Abortion is not taking a life. It's removing an unwanted, parasitic and harmful organism from your body. The consequence of this removal may be death sure, but that is not the goal in itself.

Self-determination includes the right to remove things from your body, since the inside of ones body is part of the self.


It's a separate human. It has its own feet, hands, toes and unique dna. You can count the arms on it. Does that mean the woman has 4 arms?  And two unique DNAs???  ::)

If someone eats a worm (or anything else living) does that mean that the worm is no longer its own being just because its location changed? Now eventually the worm would become part of the body as the body digests it...but I don't think it works that way with a baby. By your reasoning, it certainly seems so.

By the way, we're all organisms.  ;)

Lol you didn't understand what I wrote at all. Of course they are biologically separate organisms and logically distinct entities (albeit one relatively much less complex).

I'm saying the inside of the body (in this case the inside of a woman,'s uterus, but any part suffices) is part of a person.Therefore the person (by the right of self determination) may remove things from there. A thing can be anything from foreign objects (eg swallowed pen), to other organisms (eg human fetus, parasitic worm) to parts of the person itself (eg taking out part of your own liver).

It's you body and only you has the right of allowing things to remain inside or not. People should stop telling (or in this case forcing) others what to do with their body.

If they are separate humans, why does the mother have the "right" to terminate it? Does a dictator have the "right" to terminate people living in his country? He certainly believes in "self-determination".

The mother pregnant woman does not terminate it. She removed it from her body as is her right. It dies because it cannot sustain itself which is not her fault or responsibility.

If you, somehow, lodge yourself inside my body I will certainly forcibly remove you, as is my moral (and hopefully) legal right. Any neccessary harm this causes you is justified.

The situation of a pregnant woman is no different (other than the fact it's not the fault of the fetus either).

Don't tell others what to do with their bodies, they own it, not you.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"

Parsad

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8518

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!

What about them?  I am not a lawyer.  You have the Establishment clause that prevents the government from establishing a state religion or unduly favoring one.  And there is the free-exercise clause which guarantees that people can exercise their religion.  Thus the Governor cannot be prevented from mentioning God.

I'm not a lawyer either, but there have been cases interpreting the distinction between the nonestablishment clause and free exercise clause that there is a wall between state and religion, and that public funds/the law (broadly interpreted I grant you) has no place in religion or vice-versa.  So the Alabama Governor's role as an official supercedes her religious beliefs, and the law should not be influenced by those religious beliefs.  Cheers!
No man is a failure who has friends!

Tim Eriksen

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743

She also referenced God while signing the bill...does the Constitution not separate church from state? 

No it actually does not.  The first Amendment forbids the State from interfering in religion (the Church).  It also forbids the State from establishing a religious test for office.  It does not forbid religion as a factor or the basis for decisions for individuals or elected officials.

What about all of the Supreme Court cases since Everson vs The School Board that have deconstructed the language to indicate there is a clear wall of separation between church and state?  Cheers!

What about them?  I am not a lawyer.  You have the Establishment clause that prevents the government from establishing a state religion or unduly favoring one.  And there is the free-exercise clause which guarantees that people can exercise their religion.  Thus the Governor cannot be prevented from mentioning God.

I'm not a lawyer either, but there have been cases interpreting the distinction between the nonestablishment clause and free exercise clause that there is a wall between state and religion, and that public funds/the law (broadly interpreted I grant you) has no place in religion or vice-versa.  So the Alabama Governor's role as an official supercedes her religious beliefs, and the law should not be influenced by those religious beliefs.  Cheers!

I haven't had Con Law since college, but I think you are totally incorrect on your understanding.  It is a common misunderstanding due to the term and the way the ACLU and the far left use it.

You keep implying that the "wall" functions the same in both directions.  It is primarily a one-way prohibition.   Government cannot unduly favor a religion.  Church funds could be used if a church wanted to forgo non-profit status.  People are totally free to bring their religious views into the public square.  They can actually vote for candidates based on a religious test if they wanted.  That is all part of free-exercise.  The government however cannot set up a religious test.  Elected officials are free to vote based on their judgment and religion can be a primary factor.  Officials can freely mention God.   I believe Congress and many state houses still pray before sessions, have a chaplain, pay for chaplains in the military, etc.  Thus laws can be influenced by those beliefs.