Current Events > The punishment for having an abortion after rape in Alabama is now greater than

(+) Yeah! (+)

karlpilkington4 posted...

The world isnt black and white. Compromise is always needed

I think it's dangeros to say compromise is always needed. Especially if we're discussing actions and the standards by which we judge them.

PBusted posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

PleaseClap posted...

This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point

Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to.

I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother."

Theyre the same thing.

The mindsets behind those two thoughts are very different.

Abortion is Murder!!! Thank God America is finally going back to the ways things were. I only pray more states outlaw this act asap
---

Abortion is pretty black and white and any possible compromise would weigh heavily on the pro-life side, while also betraying the moral stance of pro-lifers.

Bodily autonomy except when...
Murder except when...

Those are bizarre statements. I don't how one could either occasionally be okay with the state controlling women's bodies or okay with the state letting women kill innocent babies.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

PleaseClap posted...

This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point

Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to.

I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother."

Theyre the same thing.

The mindsets behind those two thoughts are very different.

Not really. The underlying mindset is that the mother deserves the consequences for both. But lets forget about the consequences of what happens with the child when it grows up in a poor and unloving environment. Suddenly they dont care about the child.

Nintendo415 posted...

Abortion is Murder!!! Thank God America is finally going back to the ways things were. I only pray more states outlaw this act asap

The reason its punished more than rape is because murder is a worse crime than rape. This comes down to whether or not you think killing a child in the womb is wrong or not.
---

PBusted posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

PleaseClap posted...

This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point

Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to.

I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother."

Theyre the same thing.

The mindsets behind those two thoughts are very different.

Not really. The underlying mindset is that the mother deserves the consequences for both. But lets forget about the consequences of what happens with the child when it grows up in a poor and unloving environment. Suddenly they dont care about the child.

That's the underlying mindset for one. For the other, it's "I would rather fetuses not be killed if at all possible."

karlpilkington4 posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Abstinence, adoption and protection are all simple ways to not be in that situation. Killing a life is not a responsible choice. .

You said in another abortion law topic that you aren't in a position to adopt, and I cited the increasing numbers of foster kids GA (overall adoptions decreasing, especially of African Americans). Do you still believe "adoption" is a viable choice? Will you pay for the mother's hospital time and care?

The basis of adoption is a sound strategy because a lot of people are looking to adopt. Foster care isn't the same as adoption. Most kids in foster care are older than a baby being adopted, and a lot of the time it's a short term solution while their family gets help. A number of reasons people can't adopt is because of the expensive costs needed simply to pay an adoption agency, its not an unwillingness to adopt.

I have no idea why someone should pay for the mothers actions.

But the end result is that the kids AREN'T being adopted.. even newborns. So they end up in foster care, which isn't the best environment for kids. Having done contract work for DFCS, I know that while the goal is for family reunification, it more often doesn't happen than happens (once a child is removed). Regardless, this is about adopting newborns, correct? They are generally the most popular to adopt, yet are STILL not being adopted at a higher rate. So how can you say adoption is viable option?

As for paying for mother's healthcare, you want to make it illegal for her to get an abortion, correct? Therefore you want her to receive healthcare and medical care during delivery, correct? Will you pay for that? (if you are still advocating adoption as an option)

Again, outrageous fees (thousands of dollars) that simply go to the adoption agency, is stopping many people from adopting. If abortion is outlawed, there needs to be a massive overhaul in the adoption process that decreases the friction for people to adopt.

And no. The woman made a choice. Why am I paying for her choices? There are already welfare programs out there for people to use if they need it.

Do you have a source that "the majority of people would adopt except for outrageous fees"? Because here -
https://consideringadoption.com/adopting/adoption-costs/foster-care-adoption-costs

Georgia (the state we are discussing) has FREE or reimbursed costs, which means your argument isn't valid (I can't speak for other states).

Now, two points about the costs of forced maternity/delivery:
1) The woman made a choice, and then you chose to impose a restriction on her - so you pay to make it feasible to meet the new requirements you've imposed. When child car seats became mandatory, there were free/reduced seats offered to families so they could meet the new requirements (even though in your words the family "chose" to drive with the child)
2) You mention welfare - I assume you also meant medicaid - you would be OK with expanding these programs to cover the cost of maternity/delivery? Otherwise the life as you call it could die (without proper prenatal care and delivery)

hockeybub89 posted...

Abortion is pretty black and white and any possible compromise would weigh heavily on the pro-life side, while also betraying the moral stance of pro-lifers.

Bodily autonomy except when...
Murder except when...

Those are bizarre statements. I don't how one could either occasionally be okay with the state controlling women's bodies or okay with the state letting women kill innocent babies.

To expand on this, take the classic example of someone stealing a loaf of bread for their family. Just like in a case like that, there may be times where we look at a circumstance and forgive an action as a society or look the other way. But what we don't do is say "stealing is legal if you're stealing something for your family."

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

PBusted posted...

PleaseClap posted...

This really seems like a "let's punish the mother for her actions" argument at this point

Yep, exactly what I said itd boil down to.

I don't think this is a fair interpretation, at least not for all pro-lifers. While I'm sure there are plenty who think that way, I think just as many would sooner describe it as "don't punish the fetus for the actions of the mother."

Theyre the same thing.

The mindsets behind those two thoughts are very different.

Not really. The underlying mindset is that the mother deserves the consequences for both. But lets forget about the consequences of what happens with the child when it grows up in a poor and unloving environment. Suddenly they dont care about the child.

That's the underlying mindset for one. For the other, it's "I would rather fetuses not be killed if at all possible."

Oh, those people are just plain fucking morons. Theres no other way about it. Theyre as idiotic as flat earthers. Not even most pro-lifers are that stupid though. Theyll usually give exemptions like rape victims (even if inconsistent) and show that they dont actually view fetuses as the same level as actual children either.

My friend had to have an abortion because she was an alcoholic. She wanted to be a mother but couldnt because her body had damaged the foetus so badly.

ArchiePeck posted...

Separation of church and state!

Seriously though, we need a list of Alabama products/manufacturing etc so that we can boycott the state

Here's some:

Wayne Farms
R.L. Zeigler
Sunshine Mills
Priesters Pecan Co.
Keystone
Mrs. Strattons Salads
Tyson Foods
Lancaster Colony
Red Diamond Tea & Coffee
Buds Best Cookies
Alaga
Koch Foods
Royal Cup Coffee
Barber Dairies
Buffalo Rock
Golden Flake Snack Foods
Pilgrims Pride
Golden State Foods
Mar-Jac Poultry
To Your Health Sprouted Flour Co.
Coca-Cola United
ConAgra

Taken from: https://tinyurl.com/yy566azr
---

@s0nicfan posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

The thing that's always gotten me about the pro life crowd is their unwillingness to fund social safety nets that help these children and families post birth

Like, they'll object to higher taxes and support cuts to programs like WIC and SNAP, saying things like "why should I pay for your life choices" but in the same breath, deny people said choice in the first place

Logically, it has to be one or the other; if you demand that these children be born to families that can't support them, then you need to be ready to pay for the outcome of your beliefs

I'm pro-choice but I wanted to engage this argument because I think it misrepresents the opposing viewpoint and we're only going to win this fight if we understand where the opposition is coming from.

You're saying that it has to be one or the other, but that's because you're not framing it the way they would. Their argument is one of personal responsibility, and they see both as an attempt to escape from it. Not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then getting an abortion to them is escaping the repercussions of their decisions. Similarly, not using appropriate protection, getting pregnant, and then expecting others to pay to raise your child is just another form of the same problem.

They're not demanding that people have kids and then expecting them to raise them without financial support. What they're demanding is for people to start realizing that there are serious consequences to unprotected sex and to start acting more responsibly rather than looking for more ways to do what you want without having to deal with the consequences. To them, the cheapest and most effective plan to avoid all of this is to just use a condom.

Now, obviously you get into contradictions when you start talking about rape victims or abstinence-only Christian conservatives, but both represent a relatively small percentage of the larger debate.

I certainly see where you're coming from with the angle of personal responsibility, and I wanna say I appreciate the well thought out response

My issue with personal responsibility comes specifically with the "personal" part of it. In a vacuum, we can say that one person's choices in this situation only affects themselves; they mess up and get pregnant, they take responsibility and raise the child. No one pays for their choices but them. In this controlled situation, then that makes sense.

Framing it in a realistic sense though, it doesn't work out so nicely. Society inevitability ends up picking up some amount of slack for children born into homes that aren't prepared to raise them. This could be more people on SNAP or WIC, more kids using some sort of reduced cost/free lunch program, higher strain placed on already struggling public school systems, a further bloated foster care system, etc.

And this is only children born into poverty. I'm getting into sensitive territory, so I want to preface this by saying I don't consider those with mental disabilities to be of lesser value, but that's another area where society has to pick up slack; our special education system is even worse than our standard education. These kids need homes that are well equipped to care for them, and most people just aren't, nor is our society mature enough at this point to not treat them like total shit.

To sum it up, personal responsibility rarely remains strictly personal; that's why I say it's one or the other. If you allow children to be born into these conditions, you will pay for it some form down the line
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.

The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.

Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.

Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate.

Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby.

I noticed nobody called out this guy for this ridiculous statement

Tbh this just emphasizes how a significant part of this is rooted in misogyny
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.

The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.

Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.

Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate.

Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby.

I noticed nobody called out this guy for this ridiculous statement

Tbh this just emphasizes how a significant part of this is rooted in misogyny

Eh it's Karl. He's not worth taking seriously.
---

EscapeFromHell posted...

ArchiePeck posted...

Separation of church and state!

Seriously though, we need a list of Alabama products/manufacturing etc so that we can boycott the state

Here's some:

Wayne Farms
R.L. Zeigler
Sunshine Mills
Priesters Pecan Co.
Keystone
Mrs. Strattons Salads
Tyson Foods
Lancaster Colony
Red Diamond Tea & Coffee
Buds Best Cookies
Alaga
Koch Foods
Royal Cup Coffee
Barber Dairies
Buffalo Rock
Golden Flake Snack Foods
Pilgrims Pride
Golden State Foods
Mar-Jac Poultry
To Your Health Sprouted Flour Co.
Coca-Cola United
ConAgra

Taken from: https://tinyurl.com/yy566azr

Also:
Hyundai
Honda
Toyota
Mercedes-Benz

As well as the Airbus A320 line. So dont buy any of those.

TheGoldenEel posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.

The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.

Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.

Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate.

Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby.

I noticed nobody called out this guy for this ridiculous statement

Tbh this just emphasizes how a significant part of this is rooted in misogyny

So what exactly is incorrect about my post? You literally didnt post any sort of rebuttal.
---

EscapeFromHell posted...

ConAgra

Lmao good luck boycotting this one
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

TheGoldenEel posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

I appreciate your ability to have a civil conversation about this, and you bring up decent points. I don't think harvesting organs or donating blood is the same thing as a living being in a womb though. There is only one way for it to live, and that is the mother who created it. They chose to take actions which resulted in that baby. If there are health risks that result in the mother being in danger while carrying the baby, then sure lets reevaluate the situation. But a healthy mother (the majority) who took it upon herself to create this life, should now deal with the consequences, just like everything else in life.

The fetus dying is simply a presently necessary result.

Why? I don't understand why you think its necessary to preserve "body autonomy", when this is literally the only situation where this process occurs. It's a voluntary act which results in pregnancy. There arent men jumping inside of women, where she now lost her "body autonomy". Bugs, worms, viruses, bacteria, etc sure. But they aren't human.

Because it's not the only situation where it occurs. In all cases, no human can take from the body of another human without consent, regardless of circumstance. You don't accept blood transfusion and organ donation as analagous, because you are focusing on the fact that they did something which resulted in the pregnancy. But bodily autonomy is always protected regardless of circumstance. That's why those comparisons are appropriate.

Right, I understand. It just goes back to my previous argument that blood transfusions, etc are not the same thing as a voluntary act that the person did to themselves. There is a clear difference between someone taking a blood from someone, and a women creating a baby.

I noticed nobody called out this guy for this ridiculous statement

Tbh this just emphasizes how a significant part of this is rooted in misogyny

So what exactly is incorrect about my post? You literally didnt post any sort of rebuttal.

I'll spell it out for you - a woman can't create a baby by herself, but all your discussion on "personal responsibility" omits this fact

Ruvan22 posted...

I'll spell it out for you - a woman can't create a baby by herself, but all your discussion on "personal responsibility" omits this fact

The woman is the one getting the abortion. The father is irrelevant to this point. Go spell something else.
---

I mean, I'd say it's a somewhat pedantic point, but sure, the mother doesn't create the fetus/baby. It simply develops inside her.

karlpilkington4 posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

I'll spell it out for you - a woman can't create a baby by herself, but all your discussion on "personal responsibility" omits this fact

The woman is the one getting the abortion. The father is irrelevant to this point. Go spell something else.

Seems like comprehension still isn't your strong point (similar to the adoption issue) - why the push to force "personal responsibility" on one person in an event that required two?

karlpilkington4 posted...

jborgan posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

jborgan posted...

DevsBro posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Abortion isn't murder.

Yeah it is

No it isn't.

Alabama seems to think so.

Yeah, it's a shame the people behind these bills are such pieces of shit.

It's not a shame at all. People are literally killing a life and getting away with it.

No they are not you imbecile!

I don't get pro lifers. So if a woman doesn't want a baby then you are happy for the baby to grow up feeling unloved, resented, being abused etc etc? You are fine with a child growing up with mental issues who is a danger to themselves, others and struggle in adult life? I bet you would also be the first to complain about that child being a waster, having to live on benefits to survive, call them lazy, scroungers and waste of space when they've grown up.
---

Dude youre arguing with a troll
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Dude youre arguing with a troll

I'm pretty sure karl is Funbazooka's alt, so yeah.
---

bover_87 posted...

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Dude youre arguing with a troll

I'm pretty sure karl is Funbazooka's alt, so yeah.

This isnt true at all. It's funny how people are so sure about shit, but are completely incorrect.
---