Alabama outlaws abortion

Fanatic 00237

Full Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,111
Location
Bight of Biafra, Earth, Milky Way
Supports
The Indomitable Lions
Yes, but, you could say that about almost anything. Flat-Earther's are strong about their views, Anti-Vaxxer's are strong about their views, Climate Change deniers are strong about their views. I've lived my whole life in a country that outlawed abortion and seen the suffering it's caused women here, and in some cases, outright death. Thankfully we voted to introduce abortion by an absolute landslide last year. Anyone who is still pro-life in this day and age is as much a danger to society as any of those listed above, in my eyes.
You seriously can't be comparing people's opinions on things to laws which define how society is run by the State. Flat-earth and anti-vaxx are simply opinions, States don't make laws about those which people must abide to. Climate change might be a bit different but it's a bit of a topic for the elite class which the average citizen doesn't overly worry about. Abortion is different.

Do I have the right to say, "anyone who is pro-abortion is a huge danger to society, in my eyes" without fear of a warning from the mods?
 
Last edited:

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,701
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
I've literally quoted the post on this page. If you're not going to engage in good faith I'm done with you
I don't mean to be a dick, nor wander in to this endless debate, but the reason these debates tend to start of on the wrong foot is because of comments like your first contribution to the thread, a sarcastic "Imagine letting children live. Monsters."

This instantly kills any sort of chance for a civil debate before it starts.
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
I don't mean to be a dick, nor wander in to this endless debate, but the reason these debates tend to start of on the wrong foot is because of comments like your first contribution to the thread, a sarcastic "Imagine letting children live. Monsters."

This instantly kills any sort of chance for a civil debate before it starts.
Fair comment. I was instantly wearily as I knew where the thread was going. The sarcasm didn't help in any way, and I won't use the same opening gambit in future.

However, a deeply insulting and libellous personal comment was made against me in (disproportionate) response and a number of mods and staff on here since have endorsed it through their inaction despite me reporting it.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,512
Location
South Carolina
OK maybe I should just spell it out.
The opposite to me is "Women should be free to abort at any point of their pregnancy (as long as it's still an unborn foetus) if that's their choice"
I see. I ask because that’s not the logical opposite to “no pregnancy should be aborted”, as that would be “any pregnancy should be aborted” and I’ve never seen that actually argued.

That said, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen what you’ve said here argued either.
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
Mate, I admire your courage getting involved in such discussions here. I have tried a few times and it's a very very tough exercise to stay calm in the midst of attacks coming from almost everyone and some people trying to wind you up. Take it or leave it, this is LibCafe :cool:
That's the thing, I realise this forum leads towards pro-choice. And I don't think I'm going to change many opinions, I'm just posting for some hint of balance.

Make no mistake, if this was a predominantly pro-life forum, of the stereotypical American-right type, I'd be just as vocal in criticising those who, while nominally pro-life, create such a hostile environment for expectant mothers that they are driving a demand for abortion that need not exist. And I'd probably be a lot less civil, since can I understand the position of those calling for access to abortion, while I cannot understand the position of those who would deny financial support to vulnerable children and mothers.
 

Il Prete Rosso

Prete, the Italian Pete
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
4,501
Location
Ospedale della Pietà
It's a shitty position, but the lesser of two bad outcomes. I assure you I'll never punish you for your father's actions either.
What the feck are you talking about?
What if the woman dies in childbirth? What if her body can' take the agony and stress of 9 months of pregnancy? What if she suffers from depression afterwards? Who's gonna pay for her doctor visits? Since when a pregnant woman is public property? Are you high or something?
 

Fanatic 00237

Full Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,111
Location
Bight of Biafra, Earth, Milky Way
Supports
The Indomitable Lions
I see. I ask because that’s not the logical opposite to “no pregnancy should be aborted”, as that would be “any pregnancy should be aborted” and I’ve never seen that actually argued.

That said, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen what you’ve said here argued either.
Well, I didn't talk of logical opposite, I talked of both extremes of the debate.

It might not have been argued here but that wasn't what I was saying. The point I was making about it was that I don't think this debate (in society at large) will ever be settled, views from both extremes - and everything in-between - will always be held.
 

Massive Spanner

Give Mason Mount a chance!
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
28,309
Location
Tool shed
You seriously can't be comparing people's opinions on things to laws which define how society is run by the State. Flat-earth and anti-vaxx are simply opinions, States don't make laws about those which people must abide to. Climate change might be a bit different but it's a bit of a topic for the elite class which the average citizen doesn't overly worry about. Abortion is different.

Do I have the right to say, "anyone who is pro-abortion is a huge danger to society, in my eyes" without fear of a warning from the mods?
I assume you do? It's an opinion.

I said "in my eyes", so I'm clearly expressing this as an opinion too. In my opinion they are just as dangerous as those others listed, regardless of the laws around it. The fact that most countries have abolished these laws, apart from poorly developed ones and dictatorships means the "law" argument doesn't really hold up. Unless you live in one of those countries (or states).
 

Swarm

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
1,112
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
What the feck are you talking about?
What if the woman dies in childbirth? What if her body can' take the agony and stress of 9 months of pregnancy? What if she suffers from depression afterwards? Who's gonna pay for her doctor visits? Since when a pregnant woman is public property? Are you high or something?
That tone isn't exactly helping. If the woman were to be at risk of dying in childbirth she would be allowed to have an abortion, that is basically the only concession the Alabama law makes. @Dave89 has already expressed that in his opinion medical fees should be covered by the state/social system. Agony and stress of pregnancy and potential depression or other psychological repercussions are what the drafters of this bill and the user advocating for it do not seem to really care a lot about and that is in part what me and others are criticizing.
 

Il Prete Rosso

Prete, the Italian Pete
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
4,501
Location
Ospedale della Pietà
I'm being civil because I understand that in the extreme cases (which make bad laws, remember) the emotions will be high. I'm just on the different side of an incredibly complex and difficult decision. I understand the arguments of the pro choice movement, and I realise it's a shitty trade off where competing rights are set against each other. I won't speak glibly about the experience of rape victims.

Although a poster on page 1 essentially called me a rapist, or at the very least a rape apologist, and made accusations about how I treat the females in my life. I didn't engage, just reported it. It's still there today and the moderators have done nothing about it. The same mods who are active on this thread arguing against me. So maybe they don't really care about civil debate on here after all. At least not towards those they disagree with.
I don't think you do. I honestly don't. A woman, 6 weeks pregnant shouldn't be forced to have a child she doesn't want to, in her body, for fear that she'd end up in prison.
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
That tone isn't exactly helping. If the woman were to be at risk of dying in childbirth she would be allowed to have an abortion, that is basically the only concession the Alabama law makes. @Dave89 has already expressed that in his opinion medical fees should be covered by the state/social system. Agony and stress of pregnancy and potential depression or other psychological repercussions are what the drafters of this bill and the user advocating for it do not seem to really care a lot about and that is in part what me and others are criticizing.
The tone of his follow up post was even better. Not sure who deleted it, him or a mod, but either way I'm not engaging with him. And for what it's worth, I fully believe that the American "no abortion, but you're still on your own" is a completely immoral position and is not truly pro-life.
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
When you see facts like those.. I mean.. how can anyone defend banning abortion really? It's completely illogical.
When I see those stats I completely despair at American healthcare and its dire need of reform. I don't think ending their life sooner to prevent them dying later is the answer.
 

Rob

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
3,233
Supports
Liverpool
Denying women the option to get an abortion, even after rape and incest, is absolutely insane. Imagine your mom, sister or girlfriend being raped, only to be told that she has to give birth to the child.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,512
Location
South Carolina
views from both extremes - and everything in-between - will always be held.
As another poster a few minutes ago pointed out though, this could be said about any major topic though.

The main issue here is that one side advocates for choice with some restrictions (inherently moderate) and the other side, meaning Alabama, is arguing against choice (inherently extreme).
 

Il Prete Rosso

Prete, the Italian Pete
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
4,501
Location
Ospedale della Pietà
That tone isn't exactly helping. If the woman were to be at risk of dying in childbirth she would be allowed to have an abortion, that is basically the only concession the Alabama law makes. @Dave89 has already expressed that in his opinion medical fees should be covered by the state/social system. Agony and stress of pregnancy and potential depression or other psychological repercussions are what the drafters of this bill and the user advocating for it do not seem to really care a lot about and that is in part what me and others are criticizing.
I know a woman, who was raped and chose to have the baby for the same reason of not wanting to abort. She wanted to give up the child for adoption. She died giving birth.
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
As another poster a few minutes ago pointed out though, this could be said about any major topic though.

The main issue here is that one side advocates for choice with some restrictions (inherently moderate) and the other side, meaning Alabama, is arguing against choice (inherently extreme).
The main issue here is that one side advocates for life (inherently moderate) and the other side is arguing against life (inherently extreme).

See how controlling the language is a subtle way to try to win the debate?
 

Swarm

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
1,112
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
I know a woman, who was raped and chose to have the baby for the same reason of not wanting to abort. She wanted to give up the child for adoption. She died giving birth.
That is an absolutely heartbreaking story. I am not sure how it relates to what I wrote though to be honest.
 

Massive Spanner

Give Mason Mount a chance!
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
28,309
Location
Tool shed
Yes, and America has allowed healthcare in some of its states to go to shit (or all of its states if you're poor)
So you're saying it's pure coincidence that the states with abortion laws have lower mortality rates and it's actually because they have better healthcare?
 

Swarm

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
1,112
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
When I see those stats I completely despair at American healthcare and its dire need of reform. I don't think ending their life sooner to prevent them dying later is the answer.
But the point of the article is not just to say that the american healthcare system is crap. It shows clear corellations between anti abortion legislature and child mortality and lack of supportive policies.
Now I will be careful to not do what I always advocate against and generalize or throw you in with the rest of people making these decisions: On average the legislators who take away the option of an abortion from women actually put in place LESS systems to help them with the ordeal. That is basically what these paragraphs say:

These statistics should give the lie to legislators’ arguments that their anti-abortion measures are somehow good for women’s health or aimed at protecting their rights. A 2017 study by the Center for Reproductive Rights and IBIS Reproductive Health, a healthcare think tank, found that hostility to reproductive rights tended to go hand-in-hand with a lack of state-level policies supporting women’s and infant health.

States with the largest number of abortion restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods, counseling and ultrasounds; restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions in public or private health plans; and unnecessary standards on ambulatory abortion clinics tended to have the fewest number of supportive policies, the survey found. Those included Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act; family leave; sex- and HIV education programs; and good access to children’s health insurance programs.

Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and South Carolina all topped out with 14 of the 14 abortion restrictions tracked by the researchers; all also offered 11 or fewer of the 24 supportive policies identified by the researchers.

To take just one of those policies, seven of the 12 states with highest infant mortality have refused to expand Medicaid. Of the others, Indiana and Louisiana approved their expansion late (after Jan. 1, 2014, the earliest date for expansion) and three, including Ohio, have implemented it with restrictions such as work requirements or premiums.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,701
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
A point, at least in my opinion, that gets lost in these debates far too often, is that no one is pro-abortion. Everyone agrees that having an abortion is terrible. Yet it seems some people forget that the person it is by far (very fecking far) the most terrible for is the woman having an abortion. An abortion is an extreme measure taken in an extreme circumstance. It's not an alternative for a condom. That's why pro-life is such a (purposely, I assume) daft moniker. Everyone is pro-life, some people just think that the world shouldn't be viewed in black and white. Because if it is, and if you think a 6 week old fertilized egg is the equivalent of a baby, where do you make the cut off point. I've seen the quips about jerking off being mass murder, but how can you factually refute that if you take this black and white approach? Fact is, these sperm cells could've become a human in some scenario's. The argument is based on emotions rather than science and that's not a good base for legislation.


Also, ironically, the world would've been great of the Alabama republican Caucus would've been aborted.

Feck nearly managed a completely morally high horse post there.
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
Denying women the option to get an abortion, even after rape and incest, is absolutely insane. Imagine your mom, sister or girlfriend being raped, only to be told that she has to give birth to the child.
I struggle to fully express my thoughts on this, but I try to be sensitive, so this may be awkwardly phrased. Taking the assumption that life begins at conception (I understand this is a whole debate in itself), what you have in these undeniably tragic circumstances is the conflict between the right of an unborn child to continue living, and to live a full life. This is being set against the right of the woman not to continue with the pregnancy. I understand the arguments for the latter, I really do, but if you have to prioritise rights, then I think by very definition the right to life is key. Practically, every possible support should be given to the victim of the crime, and they or their child should not be left financially struggling, nor without mental health support.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,512
Location
South Carolina
The main issue here is that one side advocates for life (inherently moderate) and the other side is arguing against life (inherently extreme).

See how controlling the language is a subtle way to try to win the debate?
And we’re back to your original quip.

The flaw in this is that “arguing against life” would be arguing for all pregnancies to be aborted.

Which, again, I’ve yet to see.
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
And we’re back to your original quip.

The flaw in this is that “arguing against life” would be arguing for all pregnancies to be aborted.

Which, again, I’ve yet to see.
No, we're back to your attempt to control the debate. It's a pity you don't try as hard to control libellous posters.
 

Fanatic 00237

Full Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,111
Location
Bight of Biafra, Earth, Milky Way
Supports
The Indomitable Lions
I assume you do? It's an opinion.

I said "in my eyes", so I'm clearly expressing this as an opinion too. In my opinion they are just as dangerous as those others listed, regardless of the laws around it. The fact that most countries have abolished these laws, apart from poorly developed ones and dictatorships means the "law" argument doesn't really hold up. Unless you live in one of those countries (or states).
I respect your opinion, you consider me a danger to society and I consider you too the same. Hope my opinion is respected as much as yours is.

This is the second time you use the argument in bold and I don't get it, what does abortion have to do with the level of development of a country. What connection do you make between economic development and terminating a pregnancy?
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,795
Supports
Everton
I struggle to fully express my thoughts on this, but I try to be sensitive, so this may be awkwardly phrased. Taking the assumption that life begins at conception (I understand this is a whole debate in itself), what you have in these undeniably tragic circumstances is the conflict between the right of an unborn child to continue living, and to live a full life. This is being set against the right of the woman not to continue with the pregnancy. I understand the arguments for the latter, I really do, but if you have to prioritise rights, then I think by very definition the right to life is key. Practically, every possible support should be given to the victim of the crime, and they or their child should not be left financially struggling, nor without mental health support.
And what if the best thing for their mental health is to not have that child?
 

Dave89

Full Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
17,553
I respect your opinion, you consider me a danger to society and I consider you too the same. Hope my opinion is respected as much as yours is.

This is the second time you use the argument in bold and I don't get it, what does abortion have to do with the level of development of a country. What connection do you make between economic development and terminating a pregnancy?
Moreover, I thought laws should follow ethics. Trying to argue ethics on the basis of existing laws is a bit odd.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,614
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
I respect your opinion, you consider me a danger to society and I consider you too the same. Hope my opinion is respected as much as yours is.

This is the second time you use the argument in bold and I don't get it, what does abortion have to do with the level of development of a country. What connection do you make between economic development and terminating a pregnancy?
Poor people who have kids are more likely to remain poor. For a lot of women, having kids is a major barrier to career advancement.
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
20,941
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
I struggle to fully express my thoughts on this, but I try to be sensitive, so this may be awkwardly phrased. Taking the assumption that life begins at conception (I understand this is a whole debate in itself), what you have in these undeniably tragic circumstances is the conflict between the right of an unborn child to continue living, and to live a full life. This is being set against the right of the woman not to continue with the pregnancy. I understand the arguments for the latter, I really do, but if you have to prioritise rights, then I think by very definition the right to life is key. Practically, every possible support should be given to the victim of the crime, and they or their child should not be left financially struggling, nor without mental health support.
This is what it boils down to - most EU Member States and EU institutions itself recognize that an unborn child may have rights, albeit limited ones, but only after a certain period of time. A foetus right after conception does not have an immediate right to live, and even if you recognize the right to live (which some dissenting judges of court do), it's limited by the rights of the mother hence it's never an absolute right. In my opinion, surely the rights of the mother, an actual living human being, are a much bigger priority than the (limited) rights that the foetus (please don't call it a baby or child right after conception) has or should have. So yes, the right to live is important and should be prioritzed if everything is okay, but no right is absolute and conflicting rights should be balanced against each other.

In the US however, I understand that protection of unborn children is included in the right to live "in general, from the moment of conception".
 
Last edited:

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,701
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
Another thing I fail to understand. Who, apart from the pregnant woman who has to go through a procedure that's both physically and mentally disturbing, is actually harmed by abortion. It's not the fetus, since the fetus doesn't have the mental capacity to be harmed. It's arguably, the potential future the fetus could have? But why are people so precious about the potential future of a life form without a conscious. Not only that, but hold it in higher regards with the potentially harmful or even fatal effects it can have on an actual person who actually has the capacity to feel these effects?

Not even beginning to discuss the fact that there's people who are pro-life and pro-death penalty.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,512
Location
South Carolina
No, we're back to your attempt to control the debate. It's a pity you don't try as hard to control libellous posters.
1) It’s literally the same throw away quip what you started off your contribution to this thread with, which you claimed just a few minutes ago you wouldn’t do again.

2) Please, do tell how characterizing a law that removes choice as extreme and characterizing a point of view that respects choice as moderate is “trying to control the debate”.

3) I’ve yet to see libel in this thread.
 

Fanatic 00237

Full Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,111
Location
Bight of Biafra, Earth, Milky Way
Supports
The Indomitable Lions
As another poster a few minutes ago pointed out though, this could be said about any major topic though.

The main issue here is that one side advocates for choice with some restrictions (inherently moderate) and the other side, meaning Alabama, is arguing against choice (inherently extreme).
By what measure do you call one position "inherently extreme" and the other "inherently moderate". Sounds a lot like the "terrorist vs freedom fighter" debate we had in the press where I live about a social uprising, it all depends on your personal viewpoint.

In my view, the extreme angle of arguing against abortions is saying no abortions in any condition, under no circumstances whatsoever.