NationStates

New haven america wrote:If Alabama could stop giving us reasons why it shouldn't exist, that'd be great.

What do you mean?

Alouite wrote:

New haven america wrote:If Alabama could stop giving us reasons why it shouldn't exist, that'd be great.

What do you mean?

Gee, maybe allowing an abortion bill that doesn't make exceptions to rape or incest is a good place to start.

New haven america wrote:

Alouite wrote:
What do you mean?

Gee, maybe allowing an abortion bill that doesn't make exceptions to rape or incest is a good place to start.

Doubly so when it punishes being an abortion doctor worse than being a racist.

Good job Alabama. Hopefully the new law gets challenged so that Roe v Wade itself can be challenged.

Napkizemlja wrote:Good job Alabama. Hopefully the new law gets challenged so that Roe v Wade itself can be challenged.

Why? Keeping in mind that SCOTUS is generally loathe to reverse a precedent decision.

Vassenor wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:Good job Alabama. Hopefully the new law gets challenged so that Roe v Wade itself can be challenged.

Why? Keeping in mind that SCOTUS is generally loathe to reverse a precedent decision.

Please don't reply to them.

New haven america wrote:

Alouite wrote:
What do you mean?

Gee, maybe allowing an abortion bill that doesn't make exceptions to rape or incest is a good place to start.

That is a state law i.e. a statement that it cannot happen except in stated instances, not "reasons why it shouldn't exist" (semantics I know). But as far as I am concerned, if that is what Alabaman lawmakers want to do then I can see why they feel the way they do and it is their state to legislate over so good for them.

Alouite wrote:

New haven america wrote:Gee, maybe allowing an abortion bill that doesn't make exceptions to rape or incest is a good place to start.

1. That is a state law i.e. a statement that it cannot happen except in stated instances, 2. not "reasons why it shouldn't exist" (semantics I know). But as far as I am concerned, 3. if that is what Alabaman lawmakers want to do then I can see why they feel the way they do and it is their state to legislate over so good for them.

1. It's also unconstitutional
2. Alabama shouldn't exist
3. Alabama is also in the lower 40's in education, public health, etc...

Vassenor wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:Good job Alabama. Hopefully the new law gets challenged so that Roe v Wade itself can be challenged.

Why? Keeping in mind that SCOTUS is generally loathe to reverse a precedent decision.

Because I'd like to see Roe v Wade repealed. First, it was introduced on shaky legal grounds and second I consider abortion done in instances other than to save the mother's life to be reprehensible and morally repugnant. I'm okay for keeping abortion legal for medical reasons, but others are not valid reasons. The worthiness of someone's life is not predicated upon their conception, who their mother is, their socioeconomic status, etc.

New haven america wrote:

Alouite wrote:
1. That is a state law i.e. a statement that it cannot happen except in stated instances, 2. not "reasons why it shouldn't exist" (semantics I know). But as far as I am concerned, 3. if that is what Alabaman lawmakers want to do then I can see why they feel the way they do and it is their state to legislate over so good for them.

1. It's also unconstitutional
2. Alabama shouldn't exist
3. Alabama is also in the lower 40's in education, public health, etc...

1. That has yet to be decided.
2. Not even remotely close to a valid argument.
3. See above.

Napkizemlja wrote:The worthiness of someone's life is not predicated upon their conception, who their mother is, their socioeconomic status, etc.

Fetuses are not people. That has been repeatedly shown in this thread and its previous iterations.

New haven america wrote:

Alouite wrote:
1. That is a state law i.e. a statement that it cannot happen except in stated instances, 2. not "reasons why it shouldn't exist" (semantics I know). But as far as I am concerned, 3. if that is what Alabaman lawmakers want to do then I can see why they feel the way they do and it is their state to legislate over so good for them.

1. It's also unconstitutional
2. Alabama shouldn't exist
3. Alabama is also in the lower 40's in education, public health, etc...

1. I will defer to the Supreme Court on that matter rather than be so presumptuous as to pretend that I am an expert on the matter of whether that particular law crosses the threshold set in Roe v. Wade. Indeed, Roe v. Wade may soon be overturned now that the court is composed of 5 justices that might rule against it and 4 that would certainly uphold it. A single justice more being appointed by Trump will more than turn the tide if the matter was pressed.
2. Lol, maybe it doesn't
3. True, however, that doesn't really play a role in whether or not the state legislators have the power to pass a bill or not. If you are trying to say they are too stupid to write bills and the people of Alabama are too stupid to hold elections then you are more of a reactionary than I expected. But tbf I have seen crazier twists.

The New California Republic wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:The worthiness of someone's life is not predicated upon their conception, who their mother is, their socioeconomic status, etc.

Fetuses are not people. That has been repeatedly shown in this thread and its previous iterations.

Personhood is an abstract concept, so to say that your subjective view on when personhood begins should be universal is disingenuous and shows that you don't take criticism of your pro-choice perspective seriously.

Alouite wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fetuses are not people. That has been repeatedly shown in this thread and its previous iterations.

Personhood is an abstract concept

It isn't an abstract concept at all. It is clearly defined in the law and elsewhere. I know you want to muddy the waters as a cheap debating tactic, but please don't.

Alouite wrote:so to say that your subjective view on when personhood begins should be universal is disingenuous

It isn't just my subjective view at all. And as I said, it is clearly defined in law, so therefore for such intents and purposes it is universal.

Alouite wrote:and shows that you don't take criticism of your pro-choice perspective seriously.

Wow. It really doesn't show that at all.

Alouite wrote:

New haven america wrote:1. It's also unconstitutional
2. Alabama shouldn't exist
3. Alabama is also in the lower 40's in education, public health, etc...

1. I will defer to the Supreme Court on that matter rather than be so presumptuous as to pretend that I am an expert on the matter of whether that particular law crosses the threshold set in Roe v. Wade. Indeed, Roe v. Wade may soon be overturned now that the court is composed of 5 justices that might rule against it and 4 that would certainly uphold it. A single justice more being appointed by Trump will more than turn the tide if the matter was pressed.
2. Lol, maybe it doesn't
3. True, however, that doesn't really play a role in whether or not the state legislators have the power to pass a bill or not. If you are trying to say they are too stupid to write bills and the people of Alabama are too stupid to hold elections then you are more of a reactionary than I expected. But tbf I have seen crazier twists.

1. The Supreme Court has said it's unconstitutional back in the 70's
2. Unfortunately it does
3. Alabama keeps a lower educated population so that they vote for Reps. who will in term vote for shit like what Alabama has just past. You'll notice that Red States also tend to have the least well off populations.

The New California Republic wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:The worthiness of someone's life is not predicated upon their conception, who their mother is, their socioeconomic status, etc.

Fetuses are not people. That has been repeatedly shown in this thread and its previous iterations.

You have shown absolutely nothing other than appeal to authority.

The New California Republic wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:The worthiness of someone's life is not predicated upon their conception, who their mother is, their socioeconomic status, etc.

Fetuses are not people. That has been repeatedly shown in this thread and its previous iterations.

Don't get into it with them, por favor...

The New California Republic wrote:

Alouite wrote:
Personhood is an abstract concept

It isn't an abstract concept at all. It is clearly defined in the law and elsewhere. I know you want to muddy the waters as a cheap debating tactic, but please don't.

It's not muddying anything. And logical fallacies are also cheap debating tactics, so please don't.

Napkizemlja wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fetuses are not people. That has been repeatedly shown in this thread and its previous iterations.

You have shown absolutely nothing other than appeal to authority.

Using definitions isn't appeal to authority at all. If you don't like said definitions, then the onus is on you to say why they need to be changed.

Alouite wrote:

Godular wrote:
Pregnancy is an inherent threat to the life of a woman. There are any number of medical complications that can take a woman from zero to six feet under in the span of a breath. If she does not wish to take that risk, it is wrong to force her to undertake it just because you think her NOT experiencing such complications right fucking now is somehow a non-legitimate rationale.

The vast majority of pregnancies do not result in the death of a child and ultimately the point should be about when when life begins.

No. The point should be about whether a woman has full control over her body.

The reason people will never be convinced by arguments surrounding abortion is because they often have different perspectives on where life begins and are ultimately unprepared (on both sides) for a complex metaphysical argument on the matter.

I would say a large portion of pro-life types are unprepared to approach the problem from anything other than a knee-jerk emotional appeal. The issue could be dealt with in ways that do not trammel on the rights of women, but too often we see laws seeking to punish getting an abortion rather than dealing with the things that might lead a woman to consider abortion services necessary.

Napkizemlja wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:It isn't an abstract concept at all. It is clearly defined in the law and elsewhere. I know you want to muddy the waters as a cheap debating tactic, but please don't.

It's not muddying anything. And logical fallacies are also cheap debating tactics, so please don't.

Of course it is; saying that personhood is an abstract concept when clear definitions exist in the law and elsewhere is muddying the waters.

And please don't just copy what I've said but change a few words here and there; it's just lazy.

The New California Republic wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:You have shown absolutely nothing other than appeal to authority.

Using definitions isn't appeal to authority at all. If you don't like said definitions, then the onus is on you to say why they need to be changed.

Your definitions rest solely on "because the law currently says so" which a) means nothing considering how pro-life activists wish to change said definitions b) are not based on any ethical or moral backing, which is where a lot of people ITT seem to get lost.

New haven america wrote:

Alouite wrote:
1. That is a state law i.e. a statement that it cannot happen except in stated instances, 2. not "reasons why it shouldn't exist" (semantics I know). But as far as I am concerned, 3. if that is what Alabaman lawmakers want to do then I can see why they feel the way they do and it is their state to legislate over so good for them.

1. It's also unconstitutional
2. Alabama shouldn't exist
3. Alabama is also in the lower 40's in education, public health, etc...

Speaking as someone who lives in Alabama, I couldn't agree more.

The New California Republic wrote:It isn't an abstract concept at all. It is clearly defined in the law and elsewhere. I know you want to muddy the waters as a cheap debating tactic, but please don't.
It isn't just my subjective view at all. And as I said, it is clearly defined in law, so therefore for such intents and purposes it is universal.Wow. It really doesn't show that at all.

I know you want to muddy the waters as a cheap debating tactic

Right, this totally isn't a disingenuous way of responding to someone. No, not at all...

Napkizemlja wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Using definitions isn't appeal to authority at all. If you don't like said definitions, then the onus is on you to say why they need to be changed.

Your definitions rest solely on "because the law currently says so" which a) means nothing considering how pro-life activists wish to change said definitions

Do please convince us why it should be altered.

b) are not based on any ethical or moral back, which is where a lot of people ITT seem to get lost.

Considering that morality is rather completely subjective, it would seem that trying to use it as a basis for your position is rather counterproductive.