the alabama abortion attack

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Why are republicans so obsessed with rape?  It seems to come up much more than it should in national politics. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

It’s really not that simple.  I’ve known dudes with money and the girls openly talk about trying to get pregnant, forgetting to take the pill etc.  In a half joking way, of course...but let’s not act like there’s not a lot of instances where the Mom wants to be a Mom for the financial perks or whatever other perks.  Sad truth.  This shit is always way more complicated then we try to make it.  

I disagree.  Birth control isn't perfect, whether we're talking about the pill, a condom, an IUD, whatever.  If a man chooses to trust the woman or a condom, then he's taking a known (perhaps small) risk.  After that, it's her body, and her rights.

[workswithseed 2033]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I disagree.  Birth control isn't perfect, whether we're talking about the pill, a condom, an IUD, whatever.  If a man chooses to trust the woman or a condom, then he's taking a known (perhaps small) risk.  After that, it's her body, and her rights.

So when isn't her body? When is it human?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 hours ago, SDG said:

For starters; I’m for the most part pro choice (not a fan of late term) so I hope this doesn’t come off differently.

I have a couple questions that I’ve occasionally wondered about and am curious about others opinions.

Let’s say Vic get’s one of gets one of his tinder chola’s pregnant and he wants her to get an abortion but she doesn’t want to.  Even if he offers to pay for the abortion; when the baby is born, if he’s got a job, he’s on the hook for child support.  There is not choice for Vic.

Now, let’s say in the same scenario Vic wants the baby, but the chola ops for an abortion.  Again there there is no choice for Vic.

Does Surly think this is fair?  My lean is towards the ability to forgo parental rights in the event she wants to keep it and he doesn’t but I’m not sure how to execute on that.  In the second scenario I don’t think there is any solution beneficial to the man.

Life is not fair. Sucks but get used to it.

[hobbes2702 12771]

19 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

It’s really not that simple.  I’ve known dudes with money and the girls openly talk about trying to get pregnant, forgetting to take the pill etc.  In a half joking way, of course...but let’s not act like there’s not a lot of instances where the Mom wants to be a Mom for the financial perks or whatever other perks.  Sad truth.  This shit is always way more complicated then we try to make it.  

Then pull out. 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

So when isn't her body? When is it human?

When it's fucking born. End of story.

 

Unless you want to start counting age at conception and let a bunch of 17 year olds vote in 2020.

[workswithseed 2033]

6 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

When it's fucking born. End of story.

 

Unless you want to start counting age at conception and let a bunch of 17 year olds vote in 2020.

Awe, so just moments before it's born its okay to kill it? That's doesnt sound deranged at all.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

18 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Awe, so just moments before it's born its okay to kill it? That's doesnt sound deranged at all.

If the doctor and the mother decide that's the best course of action, yes.

I trust both of them more than some fucking politician (or you for that matter) that doesn't understand the reproductive process at all and/or is just pushing through their religious agenda.

 

[workswithseed 2033]

10 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

If the doctor and the mother decide that's the best course of action, yes.

I trust both of them more than some fucking politician (or you for that matter) that doesn't understand the reproductive process at all and/or is just pushing through their religious agenda.

 

A healthy baby who isn't gonna kill the mother is okay to kill moments before pushed out? I don't think you're gonna have to many people agree with your view. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by workswithseed

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I disagree.  Birth control isn't perfect, whether we're talking about the pill, a condom, an IUD, whatever.  If a man chooses to trust the woman or a condom, then he's taking a known (perhaps small) risk.  After that, it's her body, and her rights.

Definitely agree it’s her body and her rights.  Just saying it’s not always as simple as the guy could have prevented it.  The guy could be fine with oral - giving and receiving and the gal insists on sex.  Of course he can say no.  I’m just saying it’s often not just side of the equation that leads to getting pregnant.  

[ChiTownDoc 21091]

53 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Then pull out. 

I don’t even know where to begin with this. As if that method is foolproof lol.  See above, I agree it’s her body so her right to choose.  But both sides lead to the ‘mistake’ and only one side decides what happens with it.  And for the third time, I’m agreeing since the physical consequences are definitely all hers, she decides.  

[hobbes2702 12771]

It’s not full proof. My point is don’t trust the girl to take the pill. Or the condom to be 100% effective. Protect yourself.

Also I wasn’t trying to be an asshole even though it came off that way. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by hobbes2702

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

21 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

A healthy baby who isn't gonna kill the mother is okay to kill moments before pushed out? I don't think you're gonna have to many people agree with your view. 

Did you read my post? Or do we have a ton of doctors out here trying to kill newborn babies?

Jesus Christ you are a fucking beating.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Did you read my post? Or do we have a ton of doctors out here trying to kill newborn babies?

Jesus Christ you are a fucking beating.

Nobody is advocating that doctors abort healthy babies at 9 months.  I don't know if there are any doctors who would do that.  workswithweed is just a disingenuous asshole who gets off on this bullshit.

[workswithseed 2033]

Just now, Grade of D as in David said:

Did you read my post? Or do we have a ton of doctors out here trying to kill newborn babies?

Jesus Christ you are a fucking beating.

Yes, you said until after it's born. What do you think that means? 

[workswithseed 2033]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody is advocating that doctors abort healthy babies at 9 months.  I don't know if there are any doctors who would do that.  workswithweed is just a disingenuous asshole who gets off on this bullshit.

I asked you when a baby is human. He says until after birth, then that means it would be okay to abort even if healthy. I never said doctor's would, I asked an opinion not a proposal. 

[hobbes2702 12771]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I asked you when a baby is human. He says until after birth, then that means it would be okay to abort even if healthy. I never said doctor's would, I asked an opinion not a proposal. 

Your question, followed by his answer, does not support your conclusion about his opinion. 

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody is advocating that doctors abort healthy babies at 9 months.  I don't know if there are any doctors who would do that.

There aren't. They took an oath. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by WhatTheBuck

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

This editor sucks. 

[workswithseed 2033]

 

5 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

There aren't. They took an oath. 

Then when is it human? When can't you kill it?

Edited May 19, 2019 by workswithseed

[workswithseed 2033]

20 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Your question, followed by his answer, does not support your conclusion about his opinion. 

How? 

[hobbes2702 12771]

Because English lol.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

A healthy baby who isn't gonna kill the mother is okay to kill moments before pushed out? I don't think you're gonna have to many people agree with your view.  

We don't have to agree with him. 

We just have to agree to let the woman and the doctor make the decision while you go fuck yourself.

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[mchookem 16095]

shut the fuck up, donnie

[jimmyjazz 45513]

What's the over/under on # abortions Trump has paid for, not including Ivanka's?

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

3.5

[workswithseed 2033]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

We don't have to agree with him. 

We just have to agree to let the woman and the doctor make the decision while you go fuck yourself.

Good tact, mind changed. 

[austingirl 2184]

This entire subject is exhausting, especially considering that no one ever discusses penalties for men who fund abortions, or in any way acknowledges that women can't get pregnant on their own when talking about punitive measures. If you still need proof that this isn't really about babies, look no further.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tantric superman 4667]

7 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Good tact, mind changed. 

Sometimes you just have to slap someone a bit before they catch on.

You know the old saying, "A woman, a dog, and a chestnut tree...."

[HenryJames 65868]

[TexArcher 37455]

11 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Excellent rant.  

[Guest]

what does being anti-abortion have to do with those other folks?

 

ohhhh.  I forgot...abortion improves lives by preventing their plights.  

 

Only it doesn't.

[cactusflinthead 27593]

Wait there's more from D. Barnhart. 

It's the hypocrisy. Same thing Carlin said, "They need live babies so they can get dead soldiers."

Dave B.

If Alabama politicians and preachers really cared about preventing abortion, we'd have comprehensive, medically accurate sex education in schools. This new bill criminalizing abortion is entirely about controlling sexual behavior and taking away bodily autonomy. 

A few years ago, some conservative clergy proposed a resolution in our local denominational body about defunding Planned Parenthood. The resolution was tabled until we could talk through it. I offered to meet with its authors to see if we could craft a resolution we could agree on. 

None of them showed up for the first meeting. 

Since they chose not to participate, those of us who did show up kept the goal of the original resolution—reducing or preventing abortion—but chose to focus on a policy that actually applied to our state: comprehensive, medically-accurate sex education in schools. 

That got their attention. They showed up to the second meeting to oppose this change. They would not even consider a resolution that included comprehensive sex education. Abstinence was the only choice. The only compromise we reached was withdrawing the resolution. 

I asked if any of the authors had met with the people at Planned Parenthood whose jobs they were trying to defund. They had not. I offered to facilitate a meeting between representatives of Planned Parenthood and the clergy who drafted the resolution. They declined. 

I don't know how they could have made it any clearer: They didn't care about preventing abortion. Nor did they care about even hearing from the other side. 

Alabama politicians likewise have made their goals and values clear: In addition to rejecting exceptions in cases of rape or incest, they are entertaining a bill which makes false accusation of rape a felony. This is intended to intimidate women in light of the #metoo movement. All of these policies taken together are about patriarchy.

I support the right to an abortion, and see religious justification for restricting that right as a failure of empathy and imagination. Ethics requires us to imagine situations in which we have to apply our norms or policies—to put ourselves in someone else's place, to "do to others as you would have them do to you." If we create a rule or law, we have to imagine what it would be like to be subject to it. 

I believe there are people of good faith who disagree with me about public policy, and are sincere in their desire to reduce or prevent abortion. I just haven't met many yet.

[Edited to use more inclusive language]

[M12BH 544]

14 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Awe, so just moments before it's born its okay to kill it? That's doesnt sound deranged at all.

On the off chance you really are that stupid and don't understand, and aren't just repeating a convenient and regurgitated talking point, let me illustrate:

All pregnancies terminate.  Every single one.  Ending a pregnancy at nine months gestation does not necessarily mean it has to be done via abortion or that "the baby is killed".  Therefore to argue that a woman who no longer wants to be pregnant at nine months gestation is  necessarily going to have an abortion is....well, I'm out of adjectives or adverbs or whatever they are to describe that mode of thinking.

I'll also point out that there are already laws restricting post-viability abortions. So even if we are all wannabe deranged baby killers, the scenario you keep bringing up can't happen legally. Which of course has nothing to do with the laws being currently passed by these backwards states, but I digress.  

The embryo/fetus exists inside the woman to the extent the woman allows it to be there.  There are myriad reasons AT ALL STAGES OF PREGNANCY why the fetus might need to come out.  There are as many reasons why a woman might want or need to end a pregnancy as there are pregnancies.  It's a messy, complicated, often heartbreaking decision.  But by boiling it down to the notion of a bunch of deranged women wanting to kill their Gerber babies at nine months gestation as a reason to ban virtually all abortions , whether the woman had sex willingly or unwillingly, whether she took precautions or not,  you are effectively telling woman that they are no more than baby vessels.

Under the laws you propose, the only way a woman can GUARANTEE she remain childless is to not have sex.  And based on what I know of the most represented demographic on this site, there aren't a lot of people around here who think that's the way to go.  No, it's much simplerto just co-opt a woman's body before and during pregnancy and then let her deal with the results of her sluttiness.  

 

 

[austingirl 2184]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

what does being anti-abortion have to do with those other folks?

 

ohhhh.  I forgot...abortion improves lives by preventing their plights.  

 

Only it doesn't.

It has to do with them because discussing them in the context of abortion showcases the rampant hypocrisy of many anti-abortion advocates. For example, many of the same people who wax poetic on their self-righteous soapboxes about saving babies' lives are the same ones who are ok with denying government assistance to families in poverty while yammering about how they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. You (the general you) shouldn't get to go on about how we need to pass legislation to make abortion illegal while denying people services and assistance that would help prevent them from getting to that point.

I don't think anyone here will disagree that having abortions to "prevent their plights" should be the absolute last resort for anyone in that situation, but we as a nation could do a much better job of helping people to not end up in that position in the first place.

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

47 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

In text:

"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

[M12BH 544]

Just now, austingirl said:

It has to do with them because discussing them in the context of abortion showcases the rampant hypocrisy of many anti-abortion advocates. For example, many of the same people who wax poetic on their self-righteous soapboxes about saving babies' lives are the same ones who are ok with denying government assistance to families in poverty while yammering about how they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. You (the general you) shouldn't get to go on about how we need to pass legislation to make abortion illegal while denying people services and assistance that would help prevent them from getting to that point.

I don't think anyone here will disagree that having abortions to "prevent their plights" should be the absolute last resort for anyone in that situation, but we as a nation could do a much better job of helping people to not end up in that position in the first place.

Yeah, if those who are anti-abortion would support policies that, you know, actually decrease the odds of women having abortions, they'd have a lot more credibility.  As it is.....Jesus must be so proud.  

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

15 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Wait there's more from D. Barnhart. 

If Alabama politicians and preachers really cared about preventing abortion, we'd have comprehensive, medically accurate sex education in schools. This new bill criminalizing abortion is entirely about controlling sexual behavior and taking away bodily autonomy. 

A few years ago, some conservative clergy proposed a resolution in our local denominational body about defunding Planned Parenthood. The resolution was tabled until we could talk through it. I offered to meet with its authors to see if we could craft a resolution we could agree on. 

None of them showed up for the first meeting. 

Since they chose not to participate, those of us who did show up kept the goal of the original resolution—reducing or preventing abortion—but chose to focus on a policy that actually applied to our state: comprehensive, medically-accurate sex education in schools. 

That got their attention. They showed up to the second meeting to oppose this change. They would not even consider a resolution that included comprehensive sex education. Abstinence was the only choice. The only compromise we reached was withdrawing the resolution. 

I asked if any of the authors had met with the people at Planned Parenthood whose jobs they were trying to defund. They had not. I offered to facilitate a meeting between representatives of Planned Parenthood and the clergy who drafted the resolution. They declined. 

I don't know how they could have made it any clearer: They didn't care about preventing abortion. Nor did they care about even hearing from the other side. 

Alabama politicians likewise have made their goals and values clear: In addition to rejecting exceptions in cases of rape or incest, they are entertaining a bill which makes false accusation of rape a felony. This is intended to intimidate women in light of the #metoo movement. All of these policies taken together are about patriarchy.

I support the right to an abortion, and see religious justification for restricting that right as a failure of empathy and imagination. Ethics requires us to imagine situations in which we have to apply our norms or policies—to put ourselves in someone else's place, to "do to others as you would have them do to you." If we create a rule or law, we have to imagine what it would be like to be subject to it. 

I believe there are people of good faith who disagree with me about public policy, and are sincere in their desire to reduce or prevent abortion. I just haven't met many yet.

[Edited to use more inclusive language]

https://davebarnhart.wordpress.com/2019/05/15/if-they-actually-cared-about-abortion/

Edited May 19, 2019 by WhatTheBuck

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, austingirl said:

It has to do with them because discussing them in the context of abortion showcases the rampant hypocrisy of many anti-abortion advocates. For example, many of the same people who wax poetic on their self-righteous soapboxes about saving babies' lives are the same ones who are ok with denying government assistance to families in poverty while yammering about how they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. You (the general you) shouldn't get to go on about how we need to pass legislation to make abortion illegal while denying people services and assistance that would help prevent them from getting to that point.

I don't think anyone here will disagree that having abortions to "prevent their plights" should be the absolute last resort for anyone in that situation, but we as a nation could do a much better job of helping people to not end up in that position in the first place.

so, since folks are not perfect, they should accept murder?

 

Got it.

 

FTR, I support safety net and provision for those in need.  The point still begs to be addressed-  why is murder OK, regardless of the other circumstances?  Because that is politics, not morality.  If you want your win, you gotta give on something, so we choose for it to being allowed to terminate the life of the unborn.

Alabama has 55% of students eligible for free/ reduced lunch program in schools, vs 48% of the US.

Alabama has 17% of its residents receiving SNAP benefits, vs 13% of the US.

It would appear to me Alabama underprivileged are getting SOMETHING...

 

It's like some crazy ass horror flick.

Edited May 19, 2019 by slorch

[jimmyjazz 45513]

I find it interesting that, in my youth, pretty much the only significant Christian denomination that was staunchly anti-abortion was the Catholics.  The Baptists and all other Protestants to my recollection felt that life began with the first breath; i.e., at birth.  Wonder why things changed?

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I find it interesting that, in my youth, pretty much the only significant Christian denomination that was staunchly anti-abortion was the Catholics.  The Baptists and all other Protestants to my recollection felt that life began with the first breath; i.e., at birth.  Wonder why things changed?

Reagan gave the evangelicals a voice in politics and they took over the Republican Party. It created a feedback loop between the Christian Right and the GOP on the issue of abortion with each side feeding the fanaticism of the other. 

[Paul Wesley 3277]

This scenario of doctors murdering full-term infants at the whim of any woman who asks -- it is so fucking outrageously stupid... roughly the same level of stupid as Palin's "my political opponent wants to murder my handicapped child."

And yet, here we are.

[David Dennison 18608]

2 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

This scenario of doctors murdering full-term infants at the whim of any woman who asks -- it is so fucking outrageously stupid... roughly the same level of stupid as Palin's "my political opponent wants to murder my handicapped child."

And yet, here we are.

To be fair, that propaganda is aimed at the large swath of very stupid people who support Donald Trump.

[Asithappens 974]

15 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

There aren't. They took an oath. 

Many doctors don't take that oath.

Which doesn't mean that those docs are down to clown when it comes to late term abortions.

It's just that the "oath" doesn't really mean that much.

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

11 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Many doctors don't take that oath.

Which doesn't mean that those docs are down to clown when it comes to late term abortions.

It's just that the "oath" doesn't really mean that much.

However you want to define the code of ethics that doctors follow, killing healthy babies or healthy viable fetuses would violate that code of conduct and none of them are doing it. You've got to be a complete fucking moron to believe anyone who says that's happening. 

[Continental Op 3934]

14 hours ago, tantric superman said:

We don't have to agree with him. 

We just have to agree to let the woman and the doctor make the decision while you go fuck yourself.

Nah.  We need to let the fucktard who can't make a post without a grammatical error decide what is best for women!  

[bolverk 29360]

I'm a bastard who could've been easily aborted. Both my birth mother and father were 16 when I was conceived in a field outside of Houston, so this subject matter hits very close to home. I was born two years before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in the state of Texas, but my birth mother was given the choice by her stepfather to be flown to England to have an abortion. She chose instead to live in a Baptist home in Dallas for pregnant girls for several months to have me and adopt me out to a couple who couldn't get pregnant. It's a decision that I'm obviously grateful that she made.

And, yet, I still consider myself pro-choice.

Had she not had the option to give birth to me in that environment, which no longer exists (I was one of the last babies born there before it closed), I can imagine the choice would've been much more excruciating. But, in her case, she was able to look at a variety of options and chose to live in a dormitory for several months and had me anyway. You see, she chose to have me despite having been given other alternatives. Personally, I recognize how lucky I was but I also realize that my birth mom wouldn't have that same choice today.

This is a fetus at six weeks. Surely, we can agree that there should be parameters (there already are) such as limiting abortions on demand to the first trimester but also having exceptions for nonviability or the health of the mother beyond that. To insist that every single pregnancy should be carried to term is complete and utter bullshit that will absolutely ruin lives.

 

[Paul Wesley 3277]

42 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Many doctors don't take that oath.

Which doesn't mean that those docs are down to clown when it comes to late term abortions.

It's just that the "oath" doesn't really mean that much.

"Down to clown?"   That's profoundly fucking stupid.

Welcome to the ignored list.

[po elvis 2070]

if a person believes abortion is murder, how can they say it is ok if it is in a case of rape? it is murder or it is not. "well if you were raped, we allow this other human being to be murdered"? i think it takes away from their argument that it is murder.