world

U.S. abortion rights activists vow to challenge landmark Alabama ban

135 Comments
By Steve Gorman and Daniel Trotta

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

135 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

There is no right to take the life of another person.

-25 ( +13 / -38 )

This might be the case that tests Roe V Wade.

-15 ( +7 / -22 )

Don't want to be "forced" to make a cake for a gay person in their public business but want to force women to continue pregnancy even if the result of rape or incest.

Shame!

Absolute madness going on, I can only hope the supreme court does its job and knocks down these cruel and unnecessary laws quickly and effectively.

22 ( +31 / -9 )

There is no right to take the life of another person.

There is no right to tell someone what they can do with their body. The Constitution literally prohibits doing so unless the government has a compelling interest in doing so and does it in the least restrictive manner possible.

Why do conservatives hate the constitution?

16 ( +26 / -10 )

Forced-birth extremists. Sometimes I'm glad I no longer live in the US.

23 ( +32 / -9 )

Rape victims fall under this ban? Are these people serious?

I remember one gibbering Republican crackpot claimed women can’t become pregnant through rape. Perhaps this idea still has some subscribers.

24 ( +28 / -4 )

@ Burning Bush

.

Agreed.

It 's a HUMAN life from the point of inception.

The Sanctity of Human Life is an inherent right.

.

.

-28 ( +7 / -35 )

@semperfi

No it isn't, its a bunch of splitting cells....

Take a biology class

and I'll ask you the same questions as I did to burning bush.....

15 ( +21 / -6 )

It 's a HUMAN life from the point of inception.

So we should charge women that have miscarriages with manslaughter, correct?

The Sanctity of Human Life is an inherent right.

The Sanctity of the Body is an inherent right and embodied in the Constitution.

17 ( +22 / -5 )

I am personally against this bill, but i am also against other States, or worse, the Federal Govt. interfering with the internal affairs of a State. It's up to the people of each State to decide what kind of laws they want. Not all States, just like not all countries are on the same level of progression. If the people of Alabama want this law, they should have it. It's their State, they don't go to California and order them to get rid of their minimum wage laws.

There is a growing trend in the United States of people becoming more and more intolerant of other people's differences. You have to accept the fact that you have your own views, others have their own. You may be convinced you are 100% right, but so are others too. You can try to persuade them to change their mind, but if you fail, you can't force them to go along your way. It's really an arrogance to think you know what's best for others, and to not even listen to their arguments, just impose your will on them.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

The boycott of Alabama is on! No sporting event, no conventions, no music shows. Reduce the tax revenues and starve the state gov't.

Abortion exists for a reason and Planned Parenthood exists to hand these issues.

The government needs to stay out of private medical decisions, private bodies, and not promote "rules" that encourage one person to impose their private "religious" beliefs on others and their private concerns. No telling what they can come for next.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

The swing to religious extremism is very concerning. We see it in the middle east and now in the USA. Abortion is only one of the symptoms.

In many ways it would have been better if the USA had split into two at the point if the civil war. In the south you could have had a poor religion-obsessed nation and in the north a wealthy modern liberal democracy. That's basically what the us already.

But instead there is just a weird mix of two nations - culturally different and heading in different directions but flying the same flag.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

The fetus only becomes a human if it is able to survive outside of the womb with its own organs. This law bans abortion even if the life of the female is in danger herself.

15 ( +21 / -6 )

Keep all religions out of politics! Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto... it makes no difference. Keep them separate!

19 ( +21 / -2 )

Rape victims are suppose to go through with the birth because some bible bashing freaks think its gods will.....how backwards do you want to get...

17 ( +21 / -4 )

If a woman is forced to carry a child she does not want, cannot afford, isn't viable, was conceived through rape or incest or another form of force, her life is in danger. What the hell is the matter with these people?

A fetus is NOT an infant- not even close.

12 ( +18 / -6 )

Welcome to the third world America !

Maybe next you can forbid girls to go to school, or stone gay people to death ?

14 ( +19 / -5 )

The USA is quickly turning into an Afghanistan look alike country, daily shootings, religious freaks, a clown for a president, flag waving, intolerance.....

15 ( +19 / -4 )

"To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ivey said in a statement. "To all Alabamians, I assure you that we will continue to follow the rule of law."

Sounds an awful lot like some sort of Christian shariah law to me. Christian fundamentalists spruiking such utter bs in our so called 'civilised' western world is pretty disturbing.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Where did the other abortion blog go? Personally don't like the idea of abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and if the fetus is not going to make it or it puts the mother's health at risk. If your too lazy to take contraceptives then don't have sex and then use abortion as a convenient contraceptive.

-15 ( +5 / -20 )

@CrazyJoe & Ah_So,

The boycott of Alabama is on! No sporting event, no conventions, no music shows. Reduce the tax revenues and starve the state gov't.

In many ways it would have been better if the USA had split into two at the point if the civil war. In the south you could have had a poor religion-obsessed nation and in the north a wealthy modern liberal democracy. That's basically what the us already.

Seven states have enacted a ban on all or most abortions. This includes North Dakota, Ohio.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Totally unsurprised Alabama (along with other redneck states) are involved in this. This is a state which couldn't make up its mind whether to vote for a pedophile who trolled the shopping malls for young girls.

It seems to many religious extremists that everyone else has to follow their rules. Fetuses seem to have more rights that a child. These righteous people seem to not give a damn about the children being shot dead in schools. Once the child is born, they just don't care. Pro-life, my foot. Are they going to pay the medical bills for a child who is born with a genetic disease resulting from incest? Will they adopt all the unwanted children. Will they pay the poor single-mothers? The thought of turning some women into Rosemary sends shivers up my spine. If these religious nutcases get away with this, what else do you think they can do? People moan about how religion runs Muslim countries. America isn't far off.

If a woman whom I don't know and lives a 1000 miles away was thinking of having an abortion, what the heck has that got to do with me?

I am neither pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Yes, I'm pro-choice.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

If your too lazy to take contraceptives then don't have sex and then use abortion as a convenient contraceptive.

You do realize contraceptives aren't 100% effective, correct? You do realize that most people don't use abortion as a convenient contraceptive, correct? You do realize that nobody other than anti-choice people think having an abortion is fun like Disneyland, correct?

15 ( +19 / -4 )

If your (sic) too lazy to take contraceptives then don't have sex and then use abortion as a convenient contraceptive.

Some women don't take contraceptives because they're still young girls and don't know about the consequences (and some don't even know they're pregnant until they're about to give birth), or because the rapist didn't give them the option of using contraceptives.

Did you know that because Alabama recognizes incest legally, and has the highest rate of incest rape cases in the country?

No, I didn't. I just checked and it seems it's perfect legal to marry your first cousin there. While I wouldn't judge someone for doing that, there's a reason why there are significantly more children in the Pakistani community of the UK who have congenital malformations, etc.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

So 25 white republican men made this decision? Experience tells me that they usually change their minds about abortion (in private, at least) when one of their mistresses get pregnant. :)

12 ( +16 / -4 )

If a 12 year old child is raped by her cousin, do you think she should be forced to have the baby? 14 year old girls have c sections all the time in India, its not a risk to their health clearly. If a hospital in India can safely perform it, so can an American clinic. So under Alabama law, they should be forced to have it right? And who will support the baby? I think the worse crime against human rights is not only the forced birth, but the fact that the child will grow up malnourished, uneducated, and conservative.

12 ( +17 / -5 )

Experience tells me that they usually change their minds about abortion (in private, at least) when one of their mistresses get pregnant. 

I think you are right. Difference is, white rich men in Alabama can afford to have their mistresses go on a little vacation next door to get it done.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Forcing an 11 years old rape victim to endanger her life to go through a pregnancy sounds like the right thing to do ... I am more and more confused by the land of the free.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

I know this is a stretch for some people let me paint a few scenarios, and yes they have to be hypothetical because men who seem to make all the laws around this.. can't actually participate other than a DNA donation of sorts..

In terms of responsibility;

Imagine you have a party, you like parties and everyone who comes is invited, but one of them leaves a kid behind. Should you be forced to look after it, what about another step further a criminal breaks in and leaves a baby, is it your responsibility, should you be forced to look after it?

If you choose to great, but should you be forced?

In terms of bodily autonomy;

How about even further, once your child is born should you be able to be forced to donate organs against your choice, how about if its only for 9 months.. but comes reason more than marginal chance of fatality?

Again if you choose to great... but forced?

If you have cancer, should someone else choose how and if you treat it?

As for the obvious thing, as pointed out, religion shouldn't ever be the basis for policy.

This is what this is, there is no biological reason, there is no medical, scientific reason, or even statistical reason to try and ban this procedure.. it is a personal belief issue and they belong in private lives.

Its an emotional topic, but could you stand in front of a 12, 13 year old girl and say, as well as being violated (at that age no matter the circumstance it is non-consentual) you now must go through carrying a baby at extremely high risk? Outrageous!

As a non-believer Im actually a better friend than you would think, while I don't want to be told, or my family to be told how to go about our private lives based on others beliefs, I would defend the religious's right to practice as they please in their private lives, provided it doesn't directly negatively effect others. Have your babies, go to your church, sing your songs, think what you want to think, but don't tell others what to do.

For the same reasons people get all silly scared about islamic influence in politics they should be staunch supporters of separation of religion and government. It might seem great while your "team" has the power but what if that changes to a more extreme version of your religion or even another one?

and all the while people not seeing the irony as US looks in horror at the middle east theocracies while quickly trying becoming one themselves...

7 ( +11 / -4 )

For the same reasons people get all silly scared about islamic influence in politics they should be staunch supporters of separation of religion and government. It might seem great while your "team" has the power but what if that changes to a more extreme version of your religion or even another one?

Conservatives will tell you its a human rights issue, but they always include "god" in their description. At the end of the day, all they want is to protect christian values. Abortion will never become federal law, as they know what will happen if they banned it across the nation and they don't want that blood on their hands. So in the mean time, people who live in places like Alabama or Georgia will need to take a little road trip to get their operations done or result to a D.I.Y. kit at home. I surely hope they are prepared for the lawsuits to come.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I think you are right. Difference is, white rich men in Alabama can afford to have their mistresses go on a little vacation next door to get it done.

US geography not so good. Alabama is surrounded by states with challenging anti-abortion laws. They'd have to fly to Illinois, NY or California to get the least hassle procedure without a mandatory waiting period or counseling. Usually, 2 trips to the clinic is mandated in the south. Illinois is the closest, but flying N-S in the US is expensive.

Humans should have total control over their bodies.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I support the principle of this law, but am uncomfortable with the state mandating what a person can/can't do with their body. This is not a religious perspective, just a moral one.

Essentially, with the exception of rape, where a crime was committed to cause the act of conception, and where the mother's life is in demonstrable threat as a result of the pregnancy, I think abortion is the premeditated termination of another person's life without their informed consent, and therefore immoral.

As it's practically impossible to determine when a clump cells starts taking the form of a human being or measuring the exact moment a fetus's heart starts beating, the safest moral position is to consider conception as the moment when a new life begins.

People claiming that "it's a woman's body and she can do what she wants with it" are missing a few important points:

the woman is supporting another life separate to her own; it's not like she's excising a tumour

if she consented to having sex, then she and her partner are equally responsible for raising the baby (or putting it up for adoption) until the child is old enough to look after her/himself.

if the woman does not want the baby or cannot raise it, then there is the option of adoption. There are loads of infertile couples who would love to care for these babies, and consider it a tragedy that someone would abort a baby out of convenience.
-7 ( +4 / -11 )

I'm torn on abortion.

On the one hand, it's murder and a sin.

On the other hand, the people most likely to procure an abortion tend to be Democrats. So, they're ensuring fewer Democrats in the US.

This is what happened to the WASP ruling elite in the US: the Rockefeller Foundation promoted contraception, but they didn't want their children using it, just non-WASPs. Of course, it backfired, and where are they now? (Yes Virginia, for all the talk of white privilege, the WASP ruling class in America is no more).

So abortion is a tricky one.

-16 ( +2 / -18 )

If a 12 year old child is raped by her cousin, do you think she should be forced to have the baby? 

In such extreme cases, I think an abortion can be allowed.

Abortions are not for women who regret having slept with Chad without a condom, though.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Alabama declared itself to be a sanctuary state for the unborn.

Roll Tide.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

if she consented to having sex, then she and her partner are equally responsible for raising the baby (or putting it up for adoption) until the child is old enough to look after her/himself.

What if she says she didn't consent to it. Who do you believe? Or what if she consented to protected sex but the man lied and didn't use a condom?

if the woman does not want the baby or cannot raise it, then there is the option of adoption. There are loads of infertile couples who would love to care for these babies, and consider it a tragedy that someone would abort a baby out of convenience.

They can find a surrogate.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

On the one hand, it's murder and a sin.

Religious motives...

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Not only that goodlucktoyou but communities where women are given control over their reproductive rights are more wealthy and prosperous... its one of the best things you can do for impoverished areas,

If you had extensive sex education, free healthcare and birth control medication or contraception medication for all women everywhere in the world at all times, I might even be slightly on board with some restrictions on very very late term situations... but even then not my body not my choice.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

If you had extensive sex education, free healthcare and birth control medication or contraception medication for all women everywhere in the world at all times, I might even be slightly on board with some restrictions on very very late term situations... but even then not my body not my choice.

100%

8 ( +8 / -0 )

@deadforgood

What if she says she didn't consent to it. Who do you believe? Or what if she consented to protected sex but the man lied and didn't use a condom?

That's what courts are for. There are plenty of cases where women have reversed their consent after the fact for various reasons. These cases are very tough to deal with (I know, I was on a jury for a similar case), but you have to presume innocence unless it's possible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The courts are not perfect and don't always deliver a just verdict. Personable responsibility is the key - outside of rape, nobody is forcing someone else to have sex. So it's a choice that both participants have to take responsibility for. Some people might not like it, but that's life.

They can find a surrogate.

Easier said then done. There's only a small number of women willing to carry a baby for another couple. But there are huge numbers of infertile couples who would give anything to give a child a good home.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

The Sanctity of Human Life is an inherent right.

The Sanctity of the Body is an inherent right and embodied in the Constitution.

Indeed, the living body (fetus) must be protected.

Abortion exists for a reason and Planned Parenthood exists to hand these issues.

Exactly, Planned Parenthood is making a fortune selling products obtained from the fetuses.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

@IloveCoffee

We'll said. The vast majority of Alabamans what this law, including the women.

I am personally against this bill, but i am also against other States, or worse, the Federal Govt. interfering with the internal affairs of a State. It's up to the people of each State to decide what kind of laws they want. Not all States, just like not all countries are on the same level of progression. If the people of Alabama want this law, they should have it. It's their State....

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Personable responsibility is the key - outside of rape, nobody is forcing someone else to have sex. So it's a choice that both participants have to take responsibility for. Some people might not like it, but that's life.

So she says she was raped. Whose to say she is lying? Plenty of women hide the fact that they were raped for a number of reasons. Fear, shame, etc. If a woman says she was raped and the fetus growing inside her carries the same DNA as the accused, there is no question. BTW, just because Ted and Nancy are going steady or even married, that doesn't give Ted the right to knock up Nancy whenever he pleases. Rape can even exist in marital relationships.

But there are huge numbers of infertile couples who would give anything to give a child a good home.

Well if they are infertile, then I guess God didn't want them to have children...And if they can't find a surrogate or a child up for adoption, they can look abroad. There are plenty of children up for adoption all over the world.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@kohakuebisu

So, atheists can participate in political dialogue and influence the framing of laws on the basis of thier beliefs but religious people can't? That would be discrimination against about 80% of U.S. citizens and about the same percentage of the rest of the world.

Keep all religions out of politics! Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto... it makes no difference. Keep them separate!

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

That would be discrimination against about 80% of U.S. citizens and about the same percentage of the rest of the world

So do you think we should reflect shariah law in our politics as well? You seem so concerned about discriminating against religious followers, so shouldn't hard line Muslims in America be represented equally as well?

The OP was just saying that religion and politics should be separate. If politics are motivated by religion, then we start having huge problems...Politics need to be approached without bias to religion, that doesn't mean religious communities can't participate, it just means they need to respect others and keep religious beliefs at bay.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

So we should charge women that have miscarriages with manslaughter, correct?

If she's assaulted the perpetrator is charged twice with assualt and murder if the "blop of splitting cells" dies.

It's not a blob of tissue, it already has it's own distinct human dna different from the mother--it's not simply a part of the woman's body.

People say how can the governmet tell a woman what she can and can't do woth her body. How can tje government tell me i can't snort coke if I want to or shoot up smack? Afterall, it's my body. How come minors can't drink or smoke? Afterall, it's their body? How can a doctor intervene and force a patient to accept chemotherapy?

I think this ban went a little too far. Incest and rape should be allowed as exceptions; but abortion as a form of birth control, or because of a night of bad decision making? Nah, no thank you.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

The boycott of Alabama is on! No sporting event, no conventions, no music shows. Reduce the tax revenues and starve the state gov't.

How about starving the governments that support late term abortion in the last trimester?

Abortion exists for a reason and Planned Parenthood exists to hand these issues.

There is an organizations that exist for a reason that a lot of liberals don’t like on the conservative side.

The government needs to stay out of private medical decisions, private bodies, and not promote "rules" that encourage one person to impose their private "religious" beliefs on others and their private concerns. No telling what they can come for next.

This is what always perplexes me about liberals, they demand the government stay out of women’s bodies, even if it’s at the detrimental life of a late term fetus, but when it comes firearms or the 2nd amendment, the government should get involved as much as they can and do whatever they can to confront them.

That just epitomizes the word hypocrisy

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

@NZ2001

So you, an atheist, can give your opinion on political/social matters that will affect religious people, but they can't give thier opinion that will affect you?

In a democratic society everyone has an equal say/vote regardless of the source of thier opinions.

Say/vote your beliefs and let others do the same. This is equality.

..........I don't want to be told, or my family to be told how to go about our private lives based on others beliefs, I would defend the religious's right to practice as they please in their private lives, provided it doesn't directly negatively effect others. Have your babies, go to your church, sing your songs, think what you want to think, but don't tell others what to do.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Lets go one step further, much of the catholic community is against contraceptives, so should we allow this to become a political topic as well, and start banning contraceptives on top of abortion? They consider it intrinsically evil, and Christians did as well until abortion came along....

Hey, if you wanna give up sex entirely outside of procreation, be my guest. I surely won't be doing that.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

So you, an atheist, can give your opinion on political/social matters that will affect religious people, but they can't give thier opinion that will affect you?

How is Mr. Christian affected by the abortion from an unrelated woman he's never met? He's not, in fact he won't even know. And if he finds out, I guess he can call her a sinner. And let's say his wife wants to abort their baby, then he can call her a sinner and find a new wife, cause apparently she wasn't the true Christian housewife he was looking for.

That's real equality.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

"Republicans like to say that they're going to get government off your back, but they don't mind it being in a woman's uterus, do they?"

George Carlin (back in the 1980s)

9 ( +9 / -0 )

When the religious argue that politics and religion shouldn’t be separate, what they really mean is they don’t want their religion, or even particular sect of it, separate from politics.

If you want religious freedom, have a democratic and secular or functionally secular government. The religious have a bad habit of eroding or dismantling the freedoms of others if they are given the room.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

If you want religious freedom, have a democratic and secular or functionally secular government.

This is more about late term than anything else .

The religious have a bad habit of eroding or dismantling the freedoms of others if they are given the room.

As do the socialists and atheists because of their religious intolerance.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

This is more about late term than anything else

Then why are they trying to outright ban it entirely?

As do the socialists and atheists because of their religious intolerance.

How does this make any sense?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Then why are they trying to outright ban it entirely?

Please read the article again.

How does this make any sense?

A lot.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Then why are they trying to outright ban it entirely?

Please read the article again.

Be clear. What is your opinion about banning abortion in the case of rape? Your answer doesn’t need to refer to socialists.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Deadforgood

Not directly, I agree. But virtually all political dialogue (including yours) and laws passed accordingly will affect people you/we have never met.

Christians, and many others, view this as a human rights issue, that is, the unborn baby having the same right to live and enjoy life as the rest of us.

How is Mr. Christian affected by the abortion from an unrelated woman he's never met?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

No woman ever uses abortion has a form of contraception and serial abortions would leave the woman sterile. All women suffer emotionally and mentally when deciding to have an abortion or not. Never an easy decision.

Basing abortion laws on science is not the same has abortion based on religious beliefs. There must be a separation of laws and religion unlike which the fathers of Alabama believe.

It's not pro abortion or anti abortion. It's pro-life or pro-choice.

Banning abortion will return to the dirty days of illegal abortions.

This new law isn't about late term abortion, it's about banning all abortions including incest and rape but suppose to allow if the female life is in danger but that can't happen if there are no facilities.

For the Christian religious there are many banned activities outlined in the Ten Commandments. Like adultery but the Bible gives a free ticket on incest.

Abortion should be limited to 15-20 weeks.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Abortion should be limited to 15-20 weeks

Yes.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Indeed, the living body (fetus) must be protected.

At the expense of the mother. Got it.

This is more about late term than anything else .

If this were remotely accurate, Alabama's law would be so restrictive.

As do the socialists and atheists because of their religious intolerance.

As do conservatives because of their intolerance.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

How about starving the governments that support late term abortion in the last trimester?

None exist in the US. Some jurisdictions allow late term abortions for medical reasons.

This is what always perplexes me about liberals, they demand the government stay out of women’s bodies, even if it’s at the detrimental life of a late term fetus, but when it comes firearms or the 2nd amendment, the government should get involved as much as they can and do whatever they can to confront them.

Forearms and fetuses can't be compared. Nice try.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Is it still 2019 or did we go back a century? This is based on some archaic Christian belief. News flash: The international space station has been circling the earth for 40 odd years they have not see heaven or a god

There are are many reasons women have abortions and in quite a few cases it is a necessity for health reasons. These anti-abortion zealots claim it is to protect the life of the child. However, going through with a birth can destroy the lives of many.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Be clear. What is your opinion about banning abortion in the case of rape?

No one ever said in the case of rape that a woman can not have an abortion there are rules to that goes for incest as well.

Your answer doesn’t need to refer to socialists.

Actually it does because when you consider the fact that they try to step out religious freedom or undermine people who have religious belief, you’re wrong you have to refer to both as they are intertwined. Also, the debate is not going to go in the way that liberals want it to go, namely politically one sided.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

The human rights of the fetus can only be separated from the human rights of the female carrying it, when the fetus is able to survive on its own organs outside of the female carrier otherwise the priority for the human rights must lie with the female. I use the word "female" and not "woman" since a female child can be raped and made pregnant.

I think the youngest female made pregnant is about 5 years. She would be denied an abortion under this law. When the new child started school, the mother child would be about 10 years, would she also be expected to attend PTA meetings after her own classes finished.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

As do conservatives because of their intolerance

I see and socialist and atheists are extremely tolerant, is that right? Tell me “yes” so I can laugh.

None exist in the US. Some jurisdictions allow late term abortions for medical reasons.

I guess Northam must have been on drugs then, keep trying.

Forearms and fetuses can't be compared. Nice try

Nor freedom of choice in the right to life, try again.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

No one ever said in the case of rape that a woman can not have an abortion 

Someone clearly didn't read the first paragraph of the article:

*Alabama's governor on Wednesday signed a bill to ban nearly all abortions in the state, even in cases of rape and incest, in political conservatives' latest challenge to the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.*

8 ( +8 / -0 )

This ruling will go all the way to the SC which is what they want to challenge the Roe vs Wade.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

What did U.S. liberals think was going to happen when the NY state legislature gave a standing ovation and high-fiving each other after passing a bill that allowed for infants to be killed after being born? That buildings in NYC would be lit up in pink to acknowledge/applaud the decision to kill post-birth babies? That the rest of America would just silently sit by and accept that prescient-setting infanticide had become this country's new normal?

Our Constitution spells out what is guaranteed to every citizen of this great country: "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Sweet home, Alabama, especially for unborn infants.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Be clear. What is your opinion about banning abortion in the case of rape?

No one ever said in the case of rape that a woman can not have an abortion there are rules to that goes for incest as well.

Please read the article and focus on this:

rejected a provision to allow abortions for women and girls impregnated by rape or incest

So, do you think women and girls raped should be denied access to abortions?

It’s a pretty simple question not related to socialism.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The U.S. Constitution expressly states there is to be seperation of church and state.

There are no exceptions.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Our Constitution spells out what is guaranteed to every citizen of this great country: "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

A fetus is not a citizen until it can survive using its own organs and not the organs of the female woman or female child carrying the fetus.

"Until the child is brought forth from the woman's body, our relationship with it must be mediated by her."

6 ( +7 / -1 )

there are rules to that goes for incest as well

But according to the Jesus freaks what if the incest baby might be the next Jesus Christ? That is why the white Evangelical Trump Christians don't want abortion at all (even for rape or incest). If the next Jesus is coming that baby who resulted from a rape could be the 2nd coming of the Lord Savior. Right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All new born babies need the devotion of parental love and attention, irrespective of political or religious ideological beliefs.

New born babies cannot chose their parents as much as demand to be born in a world where they will not be the culmination of an incestuous relationship or a violent rape.

To enforce gestation through to birth under such conditions is beyond emotional iniquity. It is inhuman barbarism.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

zichiToday  01:37 pm JST

A fetus is not a citizen until it can survive using its own organs and not the organs of the female woman or female child carrying the fetus.

Our legal system disagrees with you. When, during the commission of a crime where a pregnant woman is killed, the perpetrator is charged with two murders: The female AND the infant she's carrying.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Our legal system disagrees with you. When, during the commission of a crime where a pregnant woman is killed, the perpetrator is charged with two murders: The female AND the infant she's carrying.

Roe vs Wade by the USSC.

The unborn child is not an infant its a fetus. "Infant", noun, young baby or child.

"developing baby is called an embryo from the moment of conception to the eighth week of pregnancy. After the eighth week and until the moment of birth, your developing baby is called a fetus."

So I would support pro-choice under to 15-20 weeks.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I would think that White Trump NRA WeThePeople Trump Evangelicals would want abortion. Why? According to them anyone who does not believe in Jesus will be sent to the Devil to burn forever (if they are able to understand the concept of believing in Jesus). But with this belief comes with the possibility that if a child dies...as long as he or she is too young to understand Jesus Christ is the savior and they you have to believe in him in order NOT to be sent to the devil...then that very small child will go to heaven. That means that any baby who is aborted they will automatically go to heaven due to this Jesus Clause. What do you think born again Jesus people. An aborted baby who hasn't even been born goes straight to heaven. What is the problem? Abortion should be encouraged by the White Trump Jesus evangelical people for this reason.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Governor Kay Ivey.......

"To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ivey said in a statement. "To all Alabamians, I assure you that we will continue to follow the rule of law."

To dictate, thus legitimize such a assumption, that conception trough licentious incest, or intercourse at the point of a gun or blade can be made legitimate as a sacred gift from god is contradiction in terms, as the act is more akin, or associated to a handout from hell.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Our legal system disagrees with you. When, during the commission of a crime where a pregnant woman is killed, the perpetrator is charged with two murders: The female AND the infant she's carrying.

If you're daughter was 12 and raped by your brother (her uncle) and she didn't tell you till she was six weeks into the pregnancy because she was scared, shocked, or unaware of what happened, what would you do? Would you have the baby aborted or would you force your 12 year old into birthing it (most likely cesarean because a natural birth might be complicated for a 12 year old)? This goes for 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 year olds as well.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Even extreme anti-abortionist/evangelist Pat Robertson was quoted saying:

I think Alabama has gone too far, they’ve passed a law that would give a 99-year prison sentence to those who commit abortions

There’s no exception for rape or incest

It’s an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe v Wade, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one’ll lose.

When you know you're about to lose a battle big time.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Funny how anti-abortion people are the same who don't want to pay for the healthcare or education of children.

Life is sacred as long as it's in the womb. After it's born, it has less value than guns.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Concerned CitizenToday  11:19 am JST

We'll said. The vast majority of Alabamans what this law, including the women.

The tyranny of the majority is not always a good way to run a country.

The majority do not have the right to rise over another's right to self-determination with their bodies.

In the USA, church and state should be split, but there is nothing to this bill without religion. This is an entirely faith-based law.

And while it is people's right to believe in a God, there is no evidence of a supernatural being, so it is a bad place to start in forming laws. The Bible contains specific rules for owning slaves and does not preach against slavery and is very clear on punishment for certain crimes (stoning for adultery etc) but we do not follow this (although the Bible's backing for slavery was used during the slave trade era).

We need to be very careful about using a religion to run our lives today. It is a very slippery slope.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

This ruling will go all the way to the SC which is what they want to challenge the Roe vs Wade

That’s what they want, especially now that the courts are more right leaning.

Someone clearly didn't read the first paragraph of the article:

Someone needs to polish up their reading and comprehension skills one would think a self proclaimed journalist with years of experience would be on top of that....oh my the stench is rank today....

I think so as most liberals didn’t read this part: Anti-abortion advocates are aware that any laws they pass are certain to be challenged. But supporters of the Alabama ban said the right to life of the fetus transcended other rights, an idea they would like tested at the Supreme Court.

The highest U.S. court, now with a majority of conservative justices after Republican President Donald Trump appointed two, could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@Ah_So

In a democracy the majority fairly wins. Otherwise you would have the unfair tyranny of the minority over the majority.

The tyranny of the majority is not always a good way to run a country.

This does not mean that religious Americans (80% of U.S. citizens) cannot have as much right to voice and vote thier opinion as the other 20%. The people of Alabama democratically elected the officials who passed this law. The vast majority of Alabamans support the law including women.

In the USA, church and state should be split.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

an idea they would like tested at the Supreme Court.

It has been tested, and they lost.

The highest U.S. court, now with a majority of conservative justices after Republican President Donald Trump appointed two, could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade.

I doubt it, 5 minutes of research online shows their opinions and a clear discomfort from the SC to overturn Roe. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to restrict some of its boundaries however, though not to the extent that Alabama has.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Deadforgood

No I don't want Sharia law reflected in my country's law. However the Muslims who are here have every right to voice thier opinions as I do. After that, we vote, and the majority wins. That is democracy which the Alabamans have practised.

So do you think we should reflect shariah law in our politics as well?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

This does not mean that religious Americans (80% of U.S. citizens) cannot have as much right to voice and vote thier opinion as the other 20%.

I'm not sure why you are generalizing this much. Even if 80% of Americans are religious (I assume you mean Christian), I highly doubt that the majority of them are strong believers or frequent church goers and also choose pro-choice.

The people of Alabama democratically elected the officials who passed this law. The vast majority of Alabamans support the law including women.

25 white christian males voted. And they hope to use this to challenge the nation on a federal level. Good luck...

I guess it works out for them, the left will move out and they can become an evangelical stronghold in the south.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Deadforgood

Americans are living in America, not China or Nth. Korea.

Religious or non religious, all have an equal right to voice an opinion. Neither can demand the other 'keep thier beliefs at bay'.

that doesn't mean religious communities can't participate, it just means they need to respect others and keep religious beliefs at bay.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

It has been tested, and they lost.

Yes, so now this action under a more conservative court will be brought up once again.

I doubt it, 5 minutes of research online shows their opinions and a clear discomfort from the SC to overturn Roe. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to restrict some of its boundaries however, though not to the extent that Alabama has.

Well, we will just have to see.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Yes, so now this action under a more conservative court will be brought up once again.

I think you need to check what the court looked like in 1973...it was approved by Republican appointees.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Welcome to the Puritan States of America... a giant step backwards into the dark ages.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The laws govern us, they create our society. If you start making religious laws for the people, you're going to have a pretty god dam intolerant world with a lot of messed up folks with a totalitarian way of running the place. Chaos, brutality, and the end of civility.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What did U.S. liberals think was going to happen when the NY state legislature gave a standing ovation and high-fiving each other after passing a bill that allowed for infants to be killed after being born?

This is completely inaccurate. Someone needs to do a little research or stop trying to pushba falsehood.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Clearly Concerned Citizen you didn’t read a word I wrote and are misrepresenting what I contributed.

Am I suggesting somewhere that we should force people to abort or to do something they don’t want in their private lives? Of course not, I wouldn’t dare it’s not my place, if someone wants to have a kid whatever the circumstances or risks then good for them.

I advocate choice, I advocate open discussion, I advocate freedom of expression, as I said besides not following any religion or holding a belief in a god, I would defend your right to do so, and you practically to have as much freedom as YOU can in YOUR personal life provided it doesn’t interfere with the freedoms of others. Simple right if we all played along like that it would be much more simple.

Why do you want to take those freedoms and rights away from others on the behalf of your beliefs is the real question? What if their beliefs are different, why do you get to decide for them?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I think so as most liberals didn’t read this part: Anti-abortion advocates are aware that any laws they pass are certain to be challenged. But supporters of the Alabama ban said the right to life of the fetus transcended other rights, an idea they would like tested at the Supreme Court.

The highest U.S. court, now with a majority of conservative justices after Republican President Donald Trump appointed two, could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade.

This does nothing to refute that you were incorrect when you said nobody wants to ban abortions in the case of rape or incest.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I am curious, does the new law penalize doctors found to be performing abortions more than fathers who rape and impregnate their daughters? How about non-incestual rape cases?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Our Constitution spells out what is guaranteed to every citizen of this great country: "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Uhhh . . . No, that wasn't the Constitution; it was the Declaration of Independence. Yoinks. Inaccurate about our foundational documents and New York law. What else?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I never understood the whole "if you're adult enough to have sex without contraception, you're adult enough to handle the consequences!" If you're not responsible enough to put on a condom or what have you, how are you responsible enough for a child? In any case I think the decision to have an abortion should be made by the woman it's affecting. Sometimes it feels like pro-lifers just want to punish people and feel morally superior.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Sometimes it feels like pro-lifers just want to punish people and feel morally superior.

If they cared about the child, they would care more about child support, foster care, health care, gun control, anti-war...other "life" related issues.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

A family, Mother, Father, two children. Mother is brutally subjected to a sexually assault, discovering later to be carrying the child of the perpetrator.

The bill signed by Governor Kay Ivey could or would require legislatively that the victim, Mother having to continue the pregnancy and give birth. The consequences to the whole family is unimaginable emotional/mental turmoil. it is outrageous cruelty.

My staunch Catholic upbringing and beliefs mean I frankly find abortion abhorrent.

However to enforce those beliefs on society as a whole, is extremist and unacceptable.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I'll tell you what, I'm willing to bet that a lot more people would side with pro-lifers if they were gun critics as well. But American children who die in our schools don't have the right to life apparently. That's what they think anyways...It's like they want to eat the frosting off the cake and leave the rest to rot.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I wonder how many "pro-choice" advocates support the idea of making vaccines a choice.

After all, my body my choice right?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I think you need to check what the court looked like in 1973...it was approved by Republican appointees.

And the Dems upheld it because the courts were always liberal since then as the ruling was consistently challenged. Now that the courts are conservative leaning, they want to try again.

The laws govern us, they create our society. If you start making religious laws for the people, you're going to have a pretty god dam intolerant world with a lot of messed up folks with a totalitarian way of running the place.

What about a world run by atheists? Do they the right to dictate and cast judgement over people that believe in religion? Or how about a higher power?

Chaos, brutality, and the end of civility.

If their opinions are snuffed out because of religious prejudice, is that ok?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Concerned CitizenToday 11:27 am JST

So, atheists can participate in political dialogue and influence the framing of laws on the basis of thier beliefs but religious people can't? That would be discrimination against about 80% of U.S. citizens and about the same percentage of the rest of the world.

Ok: It's my religion, so I can't do that.

Not ok: It's my religion, so YOU can't do that.

Atheists aren't suggesting draconian laws aimed at restricting other people's personal freedoms and bodily autonomy.

Trying to outlaw abortion for religious, not scientific, reasons is the opposite of religious freedom - it's religious oppression. The reason we have the separation of church and state is to protect the 20% from the 80%, not the other way around.

I also don't believe that people are that concerned about the sanctity of life. If they did, they would not support the death penalty.

They also do not really believe that life begins at conception. If they did, then would protest at fertility clinics, where fertilized eggs are thrown out routinely.

They would also demand child support payments from conception, would demand murder trials/wrongful death investigations for all miscarriages, demand a pregnancy be counted on the census, and there would never be any exceptions for cases of rape or incest, and no Christian pro-life women would ever get an abortion.

But that is not the case, is it - they cherry pick which tenets to follow and which ones can be bent and which ones can be completely broken or ignored. It has nothing to do with sacrosanct, inviolable beliefs and everything to do with how convenient it is and how well it fits their own personal views. In other words, it's a completely bee-ess argument.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

A more accurate headline for this article: Alabama to enforce law against murder.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The Alabama senators intended for this to go to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe v. Wade

But even renowned "Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson says Alabama's 'extreme' antiabortion law goes too far" and doesn't believe it would win that challenge:

https://www.businessinsider.com/pat-robertson-says-alabamas-extreme-anti-abortion-law-goes-too-far-2019-5

The Christian Broadcasting Network chairman and Southern Baptist minister criticized the Republican Alabama lawmakers who passed the anti-abortion bill Tuesday night in a 25-6 vote in the state legislature. The bill, which makes it a felony punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison for doctors who perform the procedure and has no exceptions in the case of rape or incest

Robertson labeling the law "extreme" shocked many conservatives and liberal pundits alike, given his typically far-right social and political stances. But Robertson is not opposed on moral or ethical grounds, instead, he says the law doesn't have the ability to win a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade if signed by the governor.

"It's an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe vs. Wade, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one will lose," Robertson added with a chuckle.

(Of note, all 25 senators who voted for it are all men)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Alabama to enforce law against murder.

"Murder" by legal entity is defined by the state

Death penalty is state-sanctioned murder, but it is legal by some governments while illegal by other governments

Assisted suicide is consensual murder, but again, legal by some governments while illegal by other governments

Clearly, which murder is legal and which murder is illegal is defined by the state's laws

If there's no law that defines a particular murder as illegal, then there's no law to enforce

5 ( +5 / -0 )

A more accurate headline for this article: Alabama to enforce law against murder.

No.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

If they cared about the child, they would care more about child support, foster care, health care, gun control, anti-war...other "life" related issues.

If liberals cared, they would call out late term abortion emphatically denounce it especially the Democrats and yet, they will not.

I'll tell you what, I'm willing to bet that a lot more people would side with pro-lifers if they were gun critics as well.

How did we on the gun subject?

But American children who die in our schools don't have the right to life apparently. That's what they think anyways...It's like they want to eat the frosting off the cake and leave the rest to rot.

I get your point, but that fails when you compare it to the hundreds and thousands of babies aborted every single day.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Some facts

1/ Since Roe V Wade in the 1970's American women have aborted over 50 million babies that's more than all the soldiers killed in American wars since the war of independence.

2/ Remember men are the net taxpayers in society, the abortion industry is subsidized by the taxpayers so that means men have the right in how their tax payments are being spent.

3/ America has to import people to keep the population up, if these 50 million abortions hadn't of happened the population would have keep up naturally.

4/ Yes it is a baby, because if a miscarriage happens the term used is a baby is miscarried - nothing else.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Burning BushToday  06:53 am JST

There is no right to take the life of another person

So Burning Bush, so you are all burned up with that crazy GOP governor signing EIGHT execution decrees and killing eight people, right? Oh no, that can’t be. This is just a power game, keeping women under your heel, having them under threat of bearing YOUR child. Keep in mind, none of the GOP’s wives or daughters in Alabama will ever have to bear a rapist’s child. Never! Amazing how that works.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Since Roe V Wade in the 1970's American women have aborted over 50 million babies that's more than all the soldiers killed in American wars since the war of independence.

Right....Andrew, MUCH better to have 50 million unwanted and unloved babies who become dysfuntional adults, and WHERE are you conservatives when it comes to actually FUNDING pre-school and schools and school lunches. NOWHERE! You are only pro-life for fetuses and embryos....only as a method of controlling women.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What about a world run by atheists? Do they the right to dictate and cast judgement over people that believe in religion?

No.

The key is a secular state which allows people of faith or no faith to lead. A secular state allows people to practice whatever religion they want without giving any preferential treatment. This is the best way to safeguard religious freedom.

The state should stay out of the religion business and the religious should keep this stuff out of the lives of others. That’s more like freedom.

Oh, religious organizations should be required to pay tax.

By the way, do you think a woman or girl who has been raped should be denied access to an abortion?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

As ever, the JT battle lines with exactly the same posters on either side, entirely predictably.

I know where I stand - there is no evidence that a foetus is a human at the point of conception. To claim so is purely based on a religious concept - a faith that cannot be proven and so should have no part in how we form laws.

Those who defend this as the will of the majority are arguing that the will of the majority overrides individual human rights to self-determination. No, they do not.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So Burning Bush, so you are all burned up with that crazy GOP governor signing EIGHT execution decrees and killing eight people, right?

You randomly and falsely assumed that I'm pro death penalty.

You are wrong. I value all life as sacred.

there is no evidence that a foetus is a human at the point of conception. 

Ok. When exactly does human life begin to have value?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

That doesn’t happen as often as people think that they just willingly want to have an abortion as a means of birth control which is often the case. Because a lot of men refuse to take precaution.

Another tired argument, Bass. Who really thinks, "I don't need contraception, instead I can have a distressing and expensive operation instead"? People do not think like this. As the make-shift secret graveyards around Irish care homes showed, the lack of contraception and abortion did nothing to stop unwanted pregancies happening.

Laws banning abortion are a boon for coat-hanger manufacturers and back-street abortionists.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Forearms and fetuses can't be compared. Nice try.

It's more than a nice try. Don't do the kamala harris thing and deflect. Its a great question and observation. And we are not talk8ng about firearms and fetuses; we are talking about the government getting involved in people's lives. Why is it that socialist, leftist, neon-colored hair people want the government out of their uteruses but think it's ok for the government to pilliage my holster? Planned Parenthood kills more people daily than people shot dead in the streets. And in America, a lot of people are shot dead in the street. Still, those numbers pale compared to the numbers killed at planned parenthood. So why the double standard?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It's more than a nice try. Don't do the kamala harris thing and deflect. Its a great question and observation. And we are not talk8ng about firearms and fetuses; we are talking about the government getting involved in people's lives. Why is it that socialist, leftist, neon-colored hair people want the government out of their uteruses but think it's ok for the government to pilliage my holster? Planned Parenthood kills more people daily than people shot dead in the streets. And in America, a lot of people are shot dead in the street. Still, those numbers pale compared to the numbers killed at planned parenthood. So why the double standard?

Bingo!

Neon colored hair....LOL

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The key is a secular state which allows people of faith or no faith to lead. A secular state allows people to practice whatever religion they want without giving any preferential treatment. This is the best way to safeguard religious freedom. 

So in other words they should shut up and not rock the boat and keep their either religious or moral ethics to themselves? Maybe they don’t believe in a higher power but find abortion a total abomination, then what?

Oh, religious organizations should be required to pay tax. 

That’ll never happen

By the way, do you think a woman or girl who has been raped should be denied access to an abortion?

I don’t think so under those circumstances.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

This is an issue for the working class. If a partner of mine needed an abortion I'd do what any self-respecting anti-abortion Republican Congressman would do.....fly her to Canada.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The people opposed in the pro choice or pro life are not involved in the medical procedures which are left to doctors, nurses and medical health workers. If they oppose abortions then they shouldn't be forced but laws based on faith are failures with those people imposing their views of faith on others. No federal or state law should be based on faith and religion.

bass4funk

bass4cally the Alabama law will ban all abortions including five year rape victims and acts of incest. You seem to deny that point.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

there is no evidence that a foetus is a human at the point of conception

Really? Then what is it? Pig DNA? By that reasoning there’s no proof that you are human.

A new life begins at the moment of cell division. Everything after is just a stage in growth, as you are still going through stages of growth right now. Has nothing to do with religion. It’s science.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Catholics are opposed to contraceptives and abortions so the Irish nuns enabled young unwed mothers to have their babies in secret and then murder the new born and place them in unmarked graves out back in the fields. This is the sort of thing that happens when faith and religion are involved.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I'm torn on abortion. On the one hand, it's murder and a sin.

Not according to zichi - he says:

The fetus only becomes a human if it is able to survive outside of the womb with its own organs. 

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The key is a secular state which allows people of faith or no faith to lead. A secular state allows people to practice whatever religion they want without giving any preferential treatment. This is the best way to safeguard religious freedom. 

So in other words they should shut up and not rock the boat and keep their either religious or moral ethics to themselves? Maybe they don’t believe in a higher power but find abortion a total abomination, then what?

Spectacularly irrelevant to what I posted. You were probably more on point when you were ranting about socialists instead of just posting you disagreed with the idea of denying abortions in the cases of incest and rape.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Another legal outrage from America's Bible Belt. Look at how little has changed there since 1925, when John T. Scopes was prosecuted for teaching Darwin in the public school.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

FYI, no known atheist has ever been elected to the US Congress, Senate or higher offices. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-atheists-in-congress_n_586c074ae4b0de3a08f9d487

91% of Congress self identifies as "Christian", while only 71% of US adults do.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

the Alabama law will ban all abortions including five year rape victims and acts of incest. You seem to deny that point.

No, I’m am just happy that this will be litigated in the courtrooms

You were probably more on point when you were ranting about socialists instead of just posting you disagreed with the idea of denying abortions in the cases of incest and rape.

So how is your ranting about secularism having anything to do with safeguarding the lives of late term aborted babies?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

After all, my body my choice right?

"all life is precious , until it steps on my property" my property my choice right?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

There is a difference when using a fire arm to defend yourself, your property then to kill a child that cannot defend itself just because you don’t want that child. So they are trying to protect the life, the life of the innocent, 

You continue to base your arguments on an early-stage foetus being a child. It is not - it is still a collection of cells that is not yet a viable human being.

Once we take away this argument, you are left with no argument. It is just religious tyranny.

I am increasingly depressed about the state of the world and the lapse of parts of it into religious orthodoxy - from the middle east to fundamentalist America. The beliefs of an iron age medditeranean tribe should not trump the rights of 21st century women.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Ok. When exactly does human life begin to have value?

Something of a grey area and open to some debate. I think pretty much everyone would agree that when a foetus is viable outside the womb it is, but many do not believe that it is human life at the moment of conception or for sometime afterwards. The formation of the brain the bones and the central nervous system are all factors to take into account.

I would feel that to the end of the first trimester it would be very hard to call the foetus independent life. By the end if the 2nd it is looking very much like a human baby, so somewhere in between.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Ah_so - You continue to base your arguments on an early-stage foetus being a child. It is not - it is still a collection of cells that is not yet a viable human being.

Once we take away this argument, you are left with no argument. It is just religious tyranny.

That seems to be the biggest hurdle to solving the issue of abortion. This is no consensus among the "we" to take away that argument. Therefore, it is still a part of the discussion. Dismissing the concerns of the other side doesn't make those concerns go away. Either side can make any claim they wish to make, but it has to be understood that those people simply do not speak for everyone else.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If their government takes this position . . . what is their economy based on?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I would feel that to the end of the first trimester it would be very hard to call the foetus independent life. By the end if the 2nd it is looking very much like a human baby, so somewhere in between.

This is the view of non-religious extremists. Extremists though have to take it to the extreme: Two cells bonded? That's the life equivalent of an adult human!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Dismissing the concerns of the other side doesn't make those concerns go away. Either side can make any claim they wish to make, but it has to be understood that those people simply do not speak for everyone else.

The difference being that you religious extremists are trying to speak for everyone, where the rest of us are saying let women speak for themselves.

So follow your own advice, and stop trying to tell everyone else how you think they should live.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The law is all about the fetus and nothing about the female with it inside of her body, and is extreme, that no exceptions are enabled for cases of rape and incest. This is a dark ages law and the most backward of ones. It’s based on religious extremism which in itself is a grave error of judgment.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites