• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Alabama Gov signs bill effectively banning abortion

Emily Ratajkowski poses naked to decry '25 old white men' who voted to ban abortion in Alabama

13586864-0-image-a-144_1558027802675.jpg


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...old-white-men-voted-ban-abortion-Alabama.html


Ummmmmmmmm......Not Guilty?
 
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the quote “Everything before the word but is horseshit”? The second part of your sentence refuted the first part.

It's that black & white, huh? So if I believe a child has the right to life, but also wouldn't want my mom to die, I'm a hypocrite because I would choose her to live out her life? Maybe I am. Maybe I am pro-choice because I believe a woman shouldn't have to lose her life over a pregnancy.

Or perhaps I'm just trying to be as practical as possible with the absolute worst situation imaginable when it comes to an abortion? That couldn't possibly be the case?
 
She should cover that horrible looking bellybutton. Looks like she has a pecan lodged inside of it.

****, I laughed out loud at that one.
 
65 million dead American children. Its about damn time somebody moved on this insanity.
 
I don't understand women's arguments on this. Everything is pro-choice. You choose whether to have sex, you choose whether or not to use protection / birt control etc etc. Getting pregnant is a consequence of your choices in the first place. Women have control of their bodies in the first place. For me i would make exceptions for rape, incest, and if the mother's life was in danger.
 
**** it. I am going to be single, and not have sex to protest the consequences of having sex. I will not have sex again until my state doesn't make me have a baby that I make from having sex.
 
If a young girl is raped and gets pregnant as a result, that is one hell of a lot different than a grown woman willingly making a choice to have unprotected sex, getting pregnant and saying, eh **** it, I don't want it. Anyone who can't see the nuance there is up to their eyeballs in political dogma and can't see reason.....no matter which political side they're on. Don't be an unthinking dogmatic person, use your critical thinking skills. They'll set you free.

Critical thinking is when you consider an argument you oppose and then test its integrity.

If an unborn child does indeed have rights, the circumstances of his mothers pregnancy are irrelevant. Once you start making exceptions, you are conceding the unborn child really doesn’t have rights.
 
It's that black & white, huh? So if I believe a child has the right to life, but also wouldn't want my mom to die, I'm a hypocrite because I would choose her to live out her life? Maybe I am. Maybe I am pro-choice because I believe a woman shouldn't have to lose her life over a pregnancy.

Or perhaps I'm just trying to be as practical as possible with the absolute worst situation imaginable when it comes to an abortion? That couldn't possibly be the case?

Let me put this another way: Faced with this heart breaking decision, would you have supported a law that would have required your mother to first provide personal, private, medical information to government authorities before she could proceed?
 
This is such a slippery slope.
My 2 cents.....a bit out of the norm :

So, it's always the women's body and the women's choice.
OK, got it.
If the woman chooses to have an abortion, the man that got her pregnant has zero say.
Likewise, if the woman chooses to carry out the pregnancy, the man who impregnated her has zero say.

These scenarios are both true...............until it's time to fork over some money, in most cases, especially the after giving birth scenario.
A man gets zero say in the abortion or keeping the pregnancy debate but is immediately saddled with financial support of the woman in her decision.
I hear A LOT about equal rights, equal pay, women shouldn't be treated as inferior and I 100% agree.
A human should be judged as a human, not by color, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

The courts are also not equal for a men and women when it comes to child custody, alimony, visitation rights, and child support.
One of the greatest protest signs I ever saw was a man holding a sign that says, " 'I only want to see my dad 4 days a month' said no child EVER".
A child deserves both parents in their lives equally, unless one of the parents puts the child's safety at a severe greater risk than general parenting.

For the abortion aspect of this?
I don't believe in abortion. I made sure I married someone that felt as I did so there would be no conflict.
The federal law of the land states it's legal, and as an American citizen, as much as it pains me, I consider myself pro-choice.
It's like the 2nd Amendment. It gives you the right to own a gun. You don't have to. You're not forced to. But the option is there.
I wouldn't want someone telling me I couldn't worship God, type on this messageboard, pursue happiness, etc.
However, having said that, I do think there should be a limitation on when the abortion can take place.
I think the pro-abortion argument is more easily digestible when the baby is a cluster of cells or not a fully formed human.
I'm not trying to be crass. Again, I personally don't believe in abortion and believe abortion is immoral and wrong.
But there are turd humans out there that rape, and sick relatives that think it's OK to sleep together, and where the mother's life is in grave danger.
I don't think abortion should be banned across the board. That's too broad of a stroke and would put many women's lives and health in grave danger.
But partial birth abortions and terming a pregnancy after the fetus is viable because the woman changed her mind is straight up murder.
Abortion should NEVER be used as birth control because two people made a poor choice and did not do any pre-planning and don't feel like living with the consequences of their poor choice.

This isn't a black and white issue.
And there's solid arguments both ways.
This is probably the biggest area where we need a compromise from both sides.
 
Or perhaps I'm just trying to be as practical as possible with the absolute worst situation imaginable when it comes to an abortion? That couldn't possibly be the case?

Not in Trog's world, I guess.
 
Critical thinking is when you consider an argument you oppose and then test its integrity.

If an unborn child does indeed have rights, the circumstances of his mothers pregnancy are irrelevant. Once you start making exceptions, you are conceding the unborn child really doesn’t have rights.

That's just dumb. Can we agree that all American citizens have rights? The right against self-incrimination, the right to be free from search absent probable cause (unless you worked for Trump, of course)?

But those rights are balanced against societal rights and the rights of other citizens. You have the right to avoid being a witness against yourself, but can still be prosecuted for a crime and have your non-protected statements used against you. See what we do there? We balance the rights against each other, like we do with EVERY ******* LAW EVER PASSED.

So we balance the health of the mother against the rights of the unborn child. Yes, both have a right to life, but the circumstances unfortunately make it impossible for both to have life. In that instance, we strike a balance and let the mother decide - does she imperil her own life to protect the child, or terminate the pregnancy to protect her own right to health and safety?
 
I have long claimed (and still believe) that the abortion issue and gun rights issue are dominated by the "voices" on the extreme ends of the spectrum. The media plays their voices and uses it for ratings and clicks.

To me, a vast majority of Americans on both gun rights and abortion rights on in the middle. In the "Gray Area", albeit also a Republican or Democrat.

There are people out there that will fight tooth and nail against ANY gun restrictions. True automatic weapons, bump stocks, hell let's go full anti-tank bazookas and there are some out there that say the Constitution ensures NO restrictions at all on firearms. There are pro-choice people of the same cloth. They don't want ANY law, written particularly by male majority legislators, which infringes on their ability to terminate a pregnancy at almost any time for any reason. Both sides use the scare tactics of "if this gets passed, more restrictions are coming down the line". Both sides use the issue to make/break their support of judges.

It leaves people in the middle of these issues without a side and without a voice. If I'm pro-choice, I get dumped into a group with radical feminists that hate men and hate that men make laws (and have made laws in the past) that restrict or tell women what to do. Or I support baby-killing. If I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment, I don't have empathy of victims of gun violence. I'm a wacko that still thinks the government is going to take the people over. I'm a conspiracy theorist. I'm a gun nut that supports owning more guns than a person could ever use (even for any reason under the sun). Or I'm a shill for the gun industry.

As a middle of the road guy on both these issues (and neither issue defines WHY I'm a conservative - in fact they are very low on the list), I am more for a middle of the road law that rocks the boat the least because there is NO WAY people are going to convince the other side of their position. No side is going to "win". And when either side goes too far, it actually HURTS their cause as it strengthens the opposite side to get out and vote.

I think the extreme gun restrictionists have hurt their position and made pro-gun Republicans turn out and vote (and maybe helped get Trump elected) and I think this abortion law in Alabama and laws like it are going to mobilize people to vote Democrat and possible cause a shift the other way.

On these two issues especially (maybe exclusively), middle of the road is really the only way forward in our country. There is no long-term winning or losing strategy. At least in my opinion.
 
So we balance the health of the mother against the rights of the unborn child. Yes, both have a right to life, but the circumstances unfortunately make it impossible for both to have life. In that instance, we strike a balance and let the mother decide - does she imperil her own life to protect the child, or terminate the pregnancy to protect her own right to health and safety?

Having worked in the healthcare industry for over 20 years, and in a hospital system for 7, I unfortunately have personally seen families agonize over these decisions.
And I've seen all options happen.
I've seen the abortion route chosen, the giving birth where the child dies, the giving birth where the mom dies, where both mom and baby live, and both mom and baby die.
Obviously, some options are infrequent and extenuating and not very common.
However, I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" choice in these instances.
I've never once seen a woman/family make the decision willy nilly without a LOT of thought/consideration/reflecting. But to reiterate, this is a hospital system, not an abortion clinic.
 
That's just dumb. Can we agree that all American citizens have rights? The right against self-incrimination, the right to be free from search absent probable cause (unless you worked for Trump, of course)?

But those rights are balanced against societal rights and the rights of other citizens. You have the right to avoid being a witness against yourself, but can still be prosecuted for a crime and have your non-protected statements used against you. See what we do there? We balance the rights against each other, like we do with EVERY ******* LAW EVER PASSED.

So we balance the health of the mother against the rights of the unborn child. Yes, both have a right to life, but the circumstances unfortunately make it impossible for both to have life. In that instance, we strike a balance and let the mother decide - does she imperil her own life to protect the child, or terminate the pregnancy to protect her own right to health and safety?

Thanks for articulating my point better than I could, ST.
 
Critical thinking is when you consider an argument you oppose and then test its integrity.

If an unborn child does indeed have rights, the circumstances of his mothers pregnancy are irrelevant. Once you start making exceptions, you are conceding the unborn child really doesn’t have rights.

You just gave an excellent example of "one size fits all" thinking that requires zero critical thinking whatsoever. It mirrors our current political discourse which is exactly why we are at the place we are. Thinking can sometimes be difficult, but it really is worth it.
 
Except for those rights of impregnated rape and incest victims in Alabama.

And the courts will take care of it. This will not be the first or last time a legislative body tries to overstep the rights of its citizens "in the name of the greater good". This happens time and time again because that's the way legislators are programmed. They WANT to do things to make their voters happy, even if what they promise oversteps the bounds of the Constitution.

That's why we have the system we do.

Again, this law will never actually be enforced. A court order will stay its execution to await resolution by courts possibly all the way up to the Supreme Court. That has always been the plan of these legislators in the first place. Never to put a doctor into jail.
 
It's a good time to invest in the drug companies that make the morning after pills. ****** are going to stock up.
 
It's a good time to invest in the drug companies that make the morning after pills. ****** are going to stock up.

**** I know supe and ark got boxes of that plan B. Neither one heard of a condom. Lol
 
Except for those rights of impregnated rape and incest victims in Alabama.

tenor.gif


says the guy who couldn't care less if a woman is raped as long as she didn't use a gun to prevent it from happening.
 
Top