Alabama outlaws abortion . . .

Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2008
Posts
6,769
1) She can perform an abortion herself.

You cannot possibly have said that without this being an intentional troll.

You're suggesting that a rape victim referred to in the original post, who has been through all that trauma already, should now be forced to give herself a DIY abortion if she cannot stand the thought of raising a child conceived under those circumstances?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Apr 2013
Posts
4,095
I don't agree with many of the pro-choice arguments, but I regard abortion as necessarily evil and I'd say the UK laws on abortion are pretty reasonable. That said, I've no issue with any democratic state forbidding access to abortion. That is how democracy works.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Posts
5,264
Location
Leeds
You cannot possibly have said that without this being an intentional troll.

You're suggesting that a rape victim referred to in the original post, who has been through all that trauma already, should now be forced to give herself a DIY abortion if she cannot stand the thought of raising a child conceived under those circumstances?
Would you have agreed with the law being as it is, if rape and incest cases were allowed abortions?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Posts
5,264
Location
Leeds
She is not forced to keep anything. 1) She can perform an abortion herself, 2) she can give the child away after birth. The law has not even passed the upper houses yet.

Gotta love the rest of the world telling Alabama they are wrong.

I happen to disagree, but hey, it is their state, and they are free to decide what to do for the best, and as a representation of public opinion.
Even If she somehowperformed the abortion herself somehow, it would still be murder.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,493
Location
Gloucestershire
Would you have agreed with the law being as it is, if rape and incest cases were allowed abortions?
I do think the rape and incest angle is overplayed.

Women should be able to choose whatever the circumstances. I would consider viability to be a reasonable cutoff, not least because otherwise you'd be birthing live babies and having to then let them die to achieve 'abortion'.

We have it close to right in this country (NI excepted), other than archaic aspects like 2 doctors having to sign off on giving the go-ahead.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Posts
5,264
Location
Leeds
I do think the rape and incest angle is overplayed.

Women should be able to choose whatever the circumstances. I would consider viability to be a reasonable cutoff, not least because otherwise you'd be birthing live babies and having to then let them die to achieve 'abortion'.

We have it close to right in this country (NI excepted), other than archaic aspects like 2 doctors having to sign off on giving the go-ahead.
I agree with alabama stance on it tbh. I don't think anyone should be killed for convenience, especially when they made a choice knowing what the consequences could be in the first place.

But really that doesn't matter, because a child doesn't deserve to die, because their mother or father was a rapist.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,493
Location
Gloucestershire
I agree with alabama stance on it tbh. I don't think anything should be killed for convenience, especially when they made a choice knowing what the consequences could be in the first place.

But really that doesn't matter, because a child doesn't deserve to die, because their mother or father was a rapist.
An embryo isn't a child, though. Nor is a foetus. But the mother is a real person, with real feelings and real trauma.

If we fear the 'consequences' of sex, then should we never have sex? Most contraception is only about 95% successful annually. We no longer live in a time where 60% of babies fail to make it to adolescence.

Where do you stand on frozen embryos?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Women should be able to choose whatever the circumstances. I would consider viability to be a reasonable cutoff, not least because otherwise you'd be birthing live babies and having to then let them die to achieve 'abortion'.

We have it close to right in this country (NI excepted), other than archaic aspects like 2 doctors having to sign off on giving the go-ahead.

^^^ this, albeit you don't necessarily want ever decreasing "viability" as medical technologies advances... given it could tend to zero over time. The current UK cut off is perhaps around the right area. Agree re: the birthing live babies, I mean that is where it gets pretty messed up - if you end up with a live baby during an abortion procedure yet just leave it to die then it becomes a very dodgy grey area, then again the doctor performing the procedure essentially has to kill the same within the womb.

I guess the 2 doctors thing is because we don't actually offer "abortion on demand" - though it doesn't actually require that both doctors have examined the woman, the second doctor can rely on information provided by another team member AFAIK. Interestingly we don't specifically outlaw abortion on the ground of the sex of the foetus so technically this could be a given reason if it is going to affect the mental health of the mother - then again these sorts of borderline cases might be where the requirements for two doctors might be useful.

I guess also above 24 weeks there needs to be much stronger reasons - in reality below 24 weeks "mental health" seems to be a rather wide ranging reason and can simply include things like financial situation, future career etc.. which seems sensible enough. Beyond 24 weeks AFAIK mental health can still be cited but I'd assume there would need to be very strong reasons for it and I guess having two doctors could again be useful there.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Posts
5,264
Location
Leeds
An embryo isn't a child, though. Nor is a foetus. But the mother is a real person, with real feelings and real trauma.

If we fear the 'consequences' of sex, then should we never have sex? Most contraception is only about 95% successful annually. We no longer live in a time where 60% of babies fail to make it to adolescence.

Where do you stand on frozen embryos?
As soon as new dna is formed. It is not longer the mother, she cannot decide what to do with it until it is outside, unfortunately every time you have sex, this is the risk you take. If you take a risk like anything else in life you have to deal with it without killing anyone else.

I have no idea about frozen embryos tbh.
I think this debate sums up my position about 95%
https://youtu.be/ty3c-H3EU5g
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
I agree with alabama stance on it tbh. I don't think anyone should be killed for convenience, especially when they made a choice knowing what the consequences could be in the first place.

But really that doesn't matter, because a child doesn't deserve to die, because their mother or father was a rapist.

Can you please explain how a woman can be a rapist?

You clearly don't know anyone well who has been raped or lack the empathy to put yourself in their position if you do. I have several friends who have been raped including an ex-girlfriend and can tell you the devastation it causes psychologically is horrific and can carry on for decades after the attack. To then force that woman to carry a foetus inside her that every time it moves or her body reacts in any way to her pregnancy it is a reminder of that rape and she might relive the event again and again is simply barbaric. PTSD isn't just for soldiers.

It also amazes me that the religious right claim it is against their Christian values. The bible doesn't mention abortion as being wrong once, in fact it advocates it several times. It doesn't have a problem with infanticide either which is carried out multiple times in the bible.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,493
Location
Gloucestershire
As soon as new dna is formed. It is not longer the mother, she cannot decide what to do with it until it is outside, unfortunately every time you have sex, this is the risk you take. If you take a risk like anything else in life you have to deal with it without killing anyone else.
Frankly, the whole body horror of having something growing inside you that you would not have the choice to remove is horrific. Putting real people through that for the sake of unthinking, unfeeling 'potential' babies is sociopathic.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Posts
5,264
Location
Leeds
Can you please explain how a woman can be a rapist?

You clearly don't know anyone well who has been raped or lack the empathy to put yourself in their position if you do. I have several friends who have been raped including an ex-girlfriend and can tell you the devastation it causes psychologically is horrific and can carry on for decades after the attack. To then force that woman to carry a foetus inside her that every time it moves or her body reacts in any way to her pregnancy it is a reminder of that rape and she might relive the event again and again is simply barbaric. PTSD isn't just for soldiers.

It also amazes me that the religious right claim it is against their Christian values. The bible doesn't mention abortion as being wrong once, in fact it advocates it several times. It doesn't have a problem with infanticide either which is carried out multiple times in the bible.
Erm I'm not religious I'm atheist, I'm just not pro child killing.
You can rage as much as you like, but like I said before you can't kill someone based on other people's actions, that is medieval.

Frankly, the whole body horror of having something growing inside you that you would not have the choice to remove is horrific. Putting real people through that for the sake of unthinking, unfeeling 'potential' babies is sociopathic.
You have the choice of being a murderer, a child killer or not. Its as simple as that.

For me it's the same as someone saying "well I cant afford to feed my kid this week, so I'll just cut them up and put them in a bin and that's fine, because they weren't a real kid."
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,085
Location
London, UK
Erm I'm not religious I'm atheist, I'm just not pro child killing.
You can rage as much as you like, but like I said before you can't kill someone based on other people's actions, that is medieval.



You have the choice of being a murderer, a child killer or not. Its as simple as that.

For me it's the same as someone saying "well I cant afford to feed my kid this week, so I'll just cut them up and put them in a bin and that's fine, because they weren't a real kid."

The last paragraph wasn't aimed at you. The first was. I'd still like to know how a woman can be a rapist? And it isn't a "child" it's a foetus. You have to be born to be a child.

You are calling a woman who takes the morning after pill which can still be taken after conception a murderer. Wow.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
A woman can rape, it’s just more effort required, more emotional entrapment and probably more violence on occasion.

I would never say they couldn’t, a woman also can achieve this by ruining the contraception, that’s also rape in my eye.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Posts
5,264
Location
Leeds
A woman can rape, it’s just more effort required, more emotional entrapment and probably more violence on occasion.

I would never say they couldn’t, a woman also can achieve this by ruining the contraception, that’s also rape in my eye.
You have summed it up pretty well there. They can also use drugs to achieve this as well much like a man could on an or a women. Unfortunately in the UK we do not recognise that men can be raped by women. Any forced intercourse would be rape. As far as I am aware it is possible for a women to force a man to do something like that. Unless you think they are so weak and pathetic that this isn't possible? It is far less likely though.


The last paragraph wasn't aimed at you. The first was. I'd still like to know how a woman can be a rapist? And it isn't a "child" it's a foetus. You have to be born to be a child.

You are calling a woman who takes the morning after pill which can still be taken after conception a murderer. Wow.
I don't often agree with StriderX, but that is a solid explanation.

Well correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that stop the egg going down the passage to womb. Which means the new dna is prevented from being formed?

Also to clarify my last point an abortion is not quite as my a analogy as the doctor would have to be called to cut up the kid for the women who couldn't pay the bills.
 
Associate
Joined
3 Feb 2019
Posts
747
A woman can rape, it’s just more effort required, more emotional entrapment and probably more violence on occasion.

I would never say they couldn’t, a woman also can achieve this by ruining the contraception, that’s also rape in my eye.

Legally a woman cannot rape. The can sexually assault or deceive which is what I think you are describing.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2012
Posts
5,264
Location
Leeds
Legally a woman cannot rape. The can sexually assault or deceive which is what I think you are describing.
Yes, the law is incorrect and sexist in this case, that's because the definition of rape they use under the law is based on a man penetrating someone.

This isn't even the same as the Oxford definition which is correct "1The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will."
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
If they are invoking God or religion - absolutely! Religion has no place in government.
.


Kind of hard when most (All) legal codes around the world are essentially originally based on religious teachings. Are you suggesting that All laws based originally on our "Ten Commandments" should be abolished? :p

And how does she pay for the birth if she doesn't have adequate healthcare coverage like a lot of Americans? Who is likely to stop it passing the upper houses? This is Alabama after all.

As I said earlir. I am neutral on abortion, I just wish people would argue the position honestly instead of hiding behind the sophistry that because embryos are very small, they are not alive.

As I also said, I am curious as to individuals parameters for acceptability for parents killing their children.

The above would suggest that you, at least, consider lack of money a justifiable reason for parents to do so! :D
 
Associate
Joined
3 Feb 2019
Posts
747
Yes, the law is incorrect and sexist in this case, that's because the definition of rape they use under the law is based on a man penetrating someone.

This isn't even the same as the Oxford definition which is correct "1The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will."

The law is correct in this situation and has every type of offence to cover all situations of sexual assault. It's incredibly simple - a penis entering a vagina, mouth or anus without consent. A surgically reconstructed penis also counts for the equality stakes out there.

The dictionary definition fails to define what sexual intercourse is which would play havoc with any discussion around the subject of sexual assault.
 
Back
Top Bottom