Jump to content

Alabama Senate passes nation’s most restrictive abortion ban, which makes no exceptions for victims of rape and incest


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

So what do we think happens when SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, generally?

 

Wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then a flood of state laws that either restrict or ban it altogether, or allow for easily accessible abortions. 

 

And LOTS of lawyer money thrown around in subsequent years to get it back to SCOTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I literally don't understand how people can care about the "life" of a fetus outside of the people people who fucked to make it. 

 Because different people have different ideas when the fetus becomes a life. What do you think? When does a fetus become a human being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like, if I made something fucking amazing, and people deemed it a priceless treasure, they don't get to stop me from destroying it. I made it and I didn't want it and fuck those who do. It's mine and I can do what I want with it. Go make your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 7:13 AM, Keyser_Soze said:

I would like to know how strictly they pay attention to the “Unless her life is in danger” part of the law, you could get theoretical with it and say, “I can’t afford to take care of it and if I did I’d starve to death and that is a danger to my life”

 

Or you could go to a doctor and he would be like the weed doctors before it was legal and ask you questions and then would sign off that your life is in danger and approve the abortion.

I’m pretty sure it is done when the mother is in immediate danger. Meaning her death would be imminent if the pregnancy is not aborted. 

 

That is if they are adhering to a rule relating to protecting the life of the mother. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 Because different people have different ideas when the fetus becomes a life. What do you think? When does a fetus become a human being?

 

Assuming by "life" you mean "person," or intrinsic worth, how about at the same line by which people judge and value other life on this planet? Or better yet, lets lose the concept (at least for academic purposes) of a context-free hard "line" altogether and consider everything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 Because different people have different ideas when the fetus becomes a life. What do you think? When does a fetus become a human being?

When it's born and can survive on its own. I'd continue further but then i'm just going to turn into a jaded fuck if I typed more on how I feel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Assuming by "life" you mean "person," how about at the same line by which people judge and value other life on this planet?

 

 

Many states will consider it double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.  Famously, Scott Peterson is on death row in California for not only killing his wife, but also the fetus inside of her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Many states will consider it double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.  Famously, Scott Peterson is on death row in California for not only killing his wife, but also the fetus inside of her. 

 

Is highlighting to me that existing law is a bizarre mix of rules supposed to make me reevaluate my conclusions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Is highlighting to me that existing law is a bizarre mix of rules supposed to make me reevaluate my conclusions?

 

No, I was just pointing out that even beyond individual people, governments (even liberal ones like California) do value fetuses as human life under certain circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

No, I was just pointing out that even beyond individual people, governments (even liberal ones like California) do value fetuses as human life under certain circumstances.

 

Sorry, I realized that might be your point after I posted and probably added a reply too late. All that shows is that people are consistent in their inconsistent valuation of fetuses. Not that the valuation is consistent with how they otherwise value life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Sorry, I realized that might be your point after I posted and probably added a reply too late. All that shows is that people are consistent in their inconsistent valuation of fetuses. Not that the valuation is consistent with how they otherwise value life.

 

NOBODY GIVES A FUCK JESUS CHRIST WE ARENT ALL ROBOTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Many states will consider it double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.  Famously, Scott Peterson is on death row in California for not only killing his wife, but also the fetus inside of her. 

 

I'm in the same camp as @Spawn_of_Apathy that anything less than viable is a parasite. Viability can occur around weeks 24 - 25. Just did a quick search and it looks like Laci Peterson was at least seven months pregnant, which explains the double homicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Many states will consider it double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.  Famously, Scott Peterson is on death row in California for not only killing his wife, but also the fetus inside of her. 

 

Many states don't consider it a homicide when an abortion is performed.

 

QED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I’m pretty sure it is done when the mother is in immediate danger. Meaning her death would be imminent if the pregnancy is not aborted. 

  

That is if they are adhering to a rule relating to protecting the life of the mother. 

 

I know what the rule IS, I'm just asking if people will attempt to skirt around it, I mean who's going to keep track of what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2019 at 10:54 AM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

"Personal convenience" Link

 

I can personally attest to the financial constraints as a reason for abortion. It's why my wife had one a year or two ago, before I started my new job. She was at about 6 weeks. Between daycare, servicing all of our student loans, and paying down medical bills from her two hospital stays before giving birth, our first ER visit bill for my daughter when she was an infant, and then the debt incurred from having to deal with unpayed maternity leave, it was not financially possible to have another kid at my then current salary. Even having my wife stop working to take care of two kids would not have been possible without accepting nearly twenty more years of debt servicing on our student loans.

 

So, uh, no thanks. These pro fetus assholes can take a long walk on a short pier. If they really cared about life, they'd make it so giving birth and taking time off for a newborn child aren't so financially burdensome, and that the woman has an actual choice to either return to work with daycare that isn't the amount of a mortgage itself, or can stay at home with the child without plunging their family into poverty (we were and are in a better position than most people, and we wouldn't have gone into poverty but another lifetime of debt shouldn't be the sentence for having a family)

While I agree with almost everything you say, it really irks me that people have children, then have an expectation of cheap or free childcare on the taxpayer dollar. I know what daycare costs, but it's a choice. Lets get people proper medical and mental health care with tax dollars, not pay for babysitters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

While I agree with almost everything you say, it really irks me that people have children, then have an expectation of cheap or free childcare on the taxpayer dollar. I know what daycare costs, but it's a choice. Lets get people proper medical and mental health care with tax dollars, not pay for babysitters. 

If people were paid a decent wage they wouldn't need taxpayers to pay for daycare costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

If people were paid a decent wage they wouldn't need taxpayers to pay for daycare costs.

Sure, it sucks, but the days of single income families are done. It is not going to get better anytime soon, not before the mob starts beheading politicians anyway. 

 

It costs a ton to run a daycare, and the last thing they want is to deal with getting the government funding on time, and without interruption every time a spending bill is passed. And they also don’t want the government telling them how much they can charge for childcare.

 

it sucks, sure, but it’s up to families to figure this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know how people afford to have kids these days. Maybe it’s cheaper elsewhere but I routinely heard of people spending a grand plus per month per kid on daycare in CA. The mother better be making damn good money for that math to work out instead of just staying home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dodger said:

I don’t know how people afford to have kids these days. Maybe it’s cheaper elsewhere but I routinely heard of people spending a grand plus per month per kid on daycare in CA. The mother better be making damn good money for that math to work out instead of just staying home.

I don't think 300$ a week is overpaid for looking after a child 40 hours a week. 

 

I sure wouldn't watch anyone else's kid for that price (well any price).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheGreatGamble said:

I don't think 300$ a week is overpaid for looking after a child 40 hours a week. 

 

I sure wouldn't watch anyone else's kid for that price (well any price).

 

I never said they were overpaid I just said the woman working would have to make decent money to make the math work. Look at bm, his wife working is really only netting around 1240 a month because the other 1240 goes to to the daycare. 

 

If you spend $2000 a month on daycare that’s $24000 a year. So you probably need to make around 30000 a year to account for taxes and such. That’s around $15 an hour. Not a ton of money but that’s just your break even point because anything less you’re better off just going on one income and not paying the daycare.

 

there is a pretty decent  chunk of the population where the second income earner wouldn’t be able to make more then that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...