Alabama outlaws abortion . . .

Lord-Jaffa said:
Abortions shouldn't be necessary in a modern society (medical complications aside), birth control is effectively free, all it shows is a lack of responsibility from all parties involved. I think over a million abortions are performed a year in the US? An absolute tiny proportion of those would be from incest/rape. There is definitely a moral arguement to be had against the procedure being used, you are essentially killing a life, unless you're prepared to define what stage in a babys development it isnt a life.

The rape/incest angle is always argued in cases of abortion, it's a fallacy to use this absolute minority of cases and apply it all abortions performed.

There is a case for both sides of this and it's a complicated issue, with how easy this is to avoid via birth control its ultimately a failure on the part of the parents.
Click to expand...

So what do you propose for victims of rape or incest?
 
I think the even bigger issue is that several states are looking at doing the same thing with the view that at some stage in the not too distant future the whole debate reaches the Supreme Court. This body is generally seen as Conservative leaning so Wade v Roe (1973) could be re-litigated.
 
VincentHanna said:
So a dad in Alabama rapes his 13 year old daughter and she gets pregnant through incest.

You think that child should be born?
Click to expand...

Do you think it should be killed?

And if that is your position is it acceptable to kill it at any time or do you think that it is ok to have a "Window of opportunity" to kill the unwanted child provided it is young and small enough but after which you may be committing murder

I am not arguing whether it is or isn't acceptable, But at the end of the day, I dont in any fundamental sense see any difference between killing such a child 4 months after conception and 12 months after conception.

To me the abortion argument isnt so much about haggling over the precise legal definition of when life begins Rather it is about under what circumstances it is acceptable to kill unwanted children.
 
billysielu said:
let them have abortions.
as for the other 99% of abortions, less clear cut.
Click to expand...

What about people who suffer contraceptive failures?

What about cases were females are given tablets by their partner under the impression that they are contraceptives?

Pretty disgusting that a group of privileged men happily impose these rules.
 
Orionaut said:
Do you think it should be killed?

And if that is your position is it acceptable to kill it at any time or do you think that it is ok to have a "Window of opportunity" to kill the unwanted child provided it is young and small enough but after which you may be committing murder

I am not arguing whether it is or isn't acceptable, But at the end of the day, I dont in any fundamental sense see any difference between killing such a child 4 months after conception and 12 months after conception.

To me the abortion argument isnt so much about haggling over the precise legal definition of when life begins Rather it is about under what circumstances it is acceptable to kill unwanted children.
Click to expand...

Inversely, do you think it's acceptable to rape and impregnate a child? You want a CHILD, repeat CHILD to go through child birth due to a circumstance that should never happen, causing them much trauma?
 
It's an interesting correlation between people who support a ban on aborting a foetus and those who are happy to see immigrants, often fleeing war, famine and poverty (i.e. death), treated as vermin and left to their fate.
 
wesimmo said:
It's an interesting correlation between people who support a ban on aborting a foetus and those who are happy to see immigrants, often fleeing war, famine and poverty (i.e. death), treated as vermin and left to their fate.
Click to expand...

Yeah - or no thought for the individuals involved. Literally their own toxic ideals. They probably hate gay people to.
 
Robert said:
What about people who suffer contraceptive failures?
Click to expand...
Everyone having sex with a contraceptive is taking this risk because they aren't 100% effective.
IMO this is not sufficient justification for killing the resulting baby.
Killing a baby for this reason is using murder as a contraceptive.

Robert said:
What about cases were females are given tablets by their partner under the impression that they are contraceptives?
Click to expand...
That's a new one to me. Wonder how they'd prove it.
Regardless, if they can prove it, it's basically forcing the woman to have a higher risk of pregnancy than she thinks she has.
So I think that's reasonable to allow an abortion in that scenario.
There's a burden of proof though, otherwise this could become a loophole.
It's similar to women pricking holes in condoms.
 
Alabama a state with the 3rd highest infant mortality rate in the US yet every life counts. What a load of *****. These right wing Christian fundamentalists are just the US version of the taliban. Pushing their twisted religious moral values on others.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Alabama a state with the 3rd highest infant mortality rate in the US yet every life counts. What a load of *****. These right wing Christian fundamentalists are just the US version of the taliban. Pushing their twisted religious moral values on others.
Click to expand...

Yep, absolute BS. Surely they should be trying to end child poverty and provide free health care? I'm going to stereotype:

- Racist
- Homophobic
- NRA members
- Anti-abortion
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
Abortions shouldn't be necessary in a modern society (medical complications aside), birth control is effectively free, all it shows is a lack of responsibility from all parties involved. I think over a million abortions are performed a year in the US? An absolute tiny proportion of those would be from incest/rape. There is definitely a moral arguement to be had against the procedure being used, you are essentially killing a life, unless you're prepared to define what stage in a babys development it isnt a life.

The rape/incest angle is always argued in cases of abortion, it's a fallacy to use this absolute minority of cases and apply it all abortions performed.

There is a case for both sides of this and it's a complicated issue, with how easy this is to avoid via birth control its ultimately a failure on the part of the parents.
Click to expand...
It should come as zero surprise that the same states that have the most limits on abortion also have the lowest rates of sex education, lowest rates of contraceptive use (and availability*) and highest rates of STD's.

Sweden from memory has extremely easy access to abortions (free, loads of places that offer it etc), but very low rates, oddly enough they also have extremely good sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

You're also playing along with the nonsense that contraceptives are always effective, they aren't, the pill won't work if you've on some antibiotics (and you're not necessarily made aware of that unless you read the small print, or the doctor/chemist tells you), condoms can break.
Oddly enough the most effective contraceptive is one that's never suggested by the people telling women not to have an abortion etc, a vasectomy has a very very low life long failure rate ;) (and can often be reversed)


*few if any free contraceptives, no obligation for health insurance to cover things like the pill etc.
 
billysielu said:
Everyone having sex with a contraceptive is taking this risk because they aren't 100% effective.
IMO this is not sufficient justification for killing the resulting baby.
Killing a baby for this reason is using murder as a contraceptive.


That's a new one to me. Wonder how they'd prove it.
Regardless, if they can prove it, it's basically forcing the woman to have a higher risk of pregnancy than she thinks she has.
So I think that's reasonable to allow an abortion in that scenario.
There's a burden of proof though, otherwise this could become a loophole.
It's similar to women pricking holes in condoms.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

Unless you're one of the fools that beleives no one should have sex except to have a baby.
And that a women, or girl who is raped should have to carry their rapists child (and in the US many states still automatically give the rapist parental rights).
 
Robert said:
So what do you propose for victims of rape or incest?
Click to expand...
Those form 0.001 and 0.01 percent of cases as far as i'm aware, you can't strawman these conditions and apply the blanket outrage towards the right to choose or the rights for the unborn child, I'm not pro-life or pro-choice personally, I am pro-responsibility, if people took more responsibility there wouldn't be much need for these bills (or abortions) at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom