Alabama taking America back to the Stone Age

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

22 men in their Senate voted for this. 

'The state Senate approved the law by 25 votes to six, rejecting exemptions for cases of rape or incest.'

 

WTF

'At the other end of the political spectrum, a Democratic-sponsored bill in Virginia that would have allowed third-trimester abortions up until the point of childbirth failed to make it out of committee.'

 

I cant even see how this could be an option, and why it would be thought of as one

That is a fair point.

If you want a laugh, watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. He shows a woman in the Alabama Senate talking about Baby Fetus who she quotes.

There are conditions (Edwards syndrome for example) which mean the baby will almost certainly die not long after birth.  The severity of those conditions often cannot be assessed until at least the 20 week scan (which often happens slightly later for logistical reasons).

 Many women would feel they would not want to carry a pregnancy to term under those circumstances.  I don't think they should have to. 

What about after they've popped out? Anyone suggested that yet?!

The view is that Alabama want this to go all the way to the Supreme Court so they can overturn Roe v Wade. This is Trump's America for you.

3-ducks15 May 19 09:01

What about after they've popped out? Anyone suggested that yet?!

_______________________________________________________________________

It seems that's already legal so long as they are black and poor

Linda, the legislation wasn't geared around the life of the child, just the physical or mental safety of the Mother.  Currently that is a severe and irremediable test, afterwards it would be "safety".  Which is a very open feast.

I am pro women's rights to choose, but at some very difficult point to determine, you have an equivalency of rights with the fetus/unborn child as it develops.  I would not advocate a law that allowed late term past obvious independent viability.  Not least because you'd better make sure it dies inside the womb, because if it survives and dies outside, it risks being infanticide and not abortion.

 

 

Been to Al a few times and view it as a backwards hell hole so this doesn't surprise me one bit.

What about after they've popped out? Anyone suggested that yet?!

Dworkin?  Or maybe not.

I did see a  lecture at Uni (security on the doors) where the argument was basically that right to life shouldn't start until the point of self awareness which was broadly the point at which you could recognise yourself in the mirror.

A good if somewhat intellectual argument to the effect that (particularly as technology advances) that is the only morally distinct point after the point at which you you could successfully remove the fetus and have it survive.

If you ban abortions at 25 weeks or 20 weeks or 15 weeks you are saying that the fetus has rights based on what it is going to develop into - that keeps the line for the cut off irredeemably grey.

There are 300 laws challenging abortion access across the States. So Alabama may be a backwards hellhole but there are others waiting to follow.

Left wingers and right wingers are too extreme in these deeply divided societies. 

US and U.K. = bullshit societies

dd king this is how it starts. Germans think they have the ideal wetland hauling and most civil Volksgenosse and the French start getting worried. 

Sorry but the divide in Germany is not half as bad, populists are not half as bad as in us/uk. So for once Germany got it right. Us/U.K. really serve as a role model as to how not to do things and which bevaviour patterns not to emulate and that goes also or in particular for the left wingers who brought about this right wing backlash and societal divide

oh will you just fvck off - we get it ,uou hate the British and the Americans,  Europe is the best thing since sliced bread  you are a  cock womble

Yeah and I have to tell you that so you can change for the better, maybe ☝️

Hmmmm...

 

Have seen it suggested that they know this will be challenged. The implication being that this is an attempt to get the matter up to the Supreme Court to try and overturn Roe. 

 

not sure they had anti abortion laws in the stone age

other than, agreed. why do right wing white men feel so strongly that they should legislate in relation to women's bodies?

So you did. Apologies. It was under a 3-ducks post and I generally scan straight past them. A shame this site doesn't have a delete option. 

"why do right wing white men feel so strongly that they should legislate in relation to women's bodies?"

It's in relation to the bodies of unborn children of both sexes. And I've no idea how "right wing" they are. I'm sure lots of Catholics, for example, of all political persuasion feel similarly strongly.

I see both sides of right to life argument, on balance I go with women's right to choose but I cannot see how it is obviously the right answer that one life has the right to terminate another that is dependent on it, and I cannot see it is obviously the right answer to say that human rights only begin after birth (or some arbitrary time before birth).   I think the vitriol here is misplaced

[I also incidently don't understand why this is a such right wing/liberal divide - the question is essentially a philosophical one about ethics rights and obligations that I would have thought transcended the traditional political divide]

A few comments on this. 

1. Trumps America is full of pigshit thick people. 

2. America is slipping into a terrifying distopia. 

3. DD king is tedious little prick by trying to make this a UK issue. What a cunt. 

4. Talking about later term abortions on this thread is a typical distraction from a massive step backwards.

 

Guy C - if not a political decision, surely the answer is it should not be  governed by politicians. It should be up to each individual to apply their own ethics rights etc.

There is no correct answer but surely we can all agree that an 11 year old who has been raped should not be forced to go through childbirth for the baby of her rapist?

I struggle to be interested in abortion law in other countries. But I notice that a lot of people feel very passionately about it. am I in the minority?

If someone told you that the US were going to ban gay sex., wouldn't you be interested even if not gay?

 

This is about human rights.

Yes Diceman you are. "modern" states embracing regressive and loony religious right wing ideologies is something to be very concerned about, unless you are a moron. 

Alabama must have a massive incest problem though. Shouldn't they rather be extending abortion for incest to post-partum cases?  What a bunch of loonies.

One of the many reasons most people don’t want to discuss abortion rules is the unfailing extremism that other people bring to the issue.  

The Alabama law is a case in point, banning abortions in some cases where even the Romans permit them.

A good number of countries in Europe and states in the USA have moderate abortion laws.  The details of those laws differ widely.  

It would be great if people could refrain from casting everyone who does not agree with them on every detail as a murderer or a tyrant.

Tbh I think people who are ok with a child being forced to carry a pregnancy brought about by rape deserves whatever epithet gets thrown their way. Tyrant is mild. 

Hang on a sec, Dal Segno.

That almost sounds as if you're advocating civilised, moderate discourse over a highly nuanced and emotive topic. WTF? This is RoF.

Dal - how is the case in point on people not wanting to discuss this the Alabama law? 

 

wyn, I guess I think abortion is not a binary issue whereas gay sex is. eg I don't think a child should be forced to go through with a pregnancy after being raped (Linda's example above)

anyway, I'm getting off this thread.

Diceman that is true. My point was that elements of it are binary eg raped child which go the root of our human rights rather than being someone else's problem.

 

 

What Dal said, I don't think it is an entirely unreasonable position to take the view that life begins at conception and that only in exceptional circumstances, where the life of the mother is in danger, should termination of that life be allowable because if you think an individual is an individual from conception they should get, as far as possible, the same protections as everyone else.     This is certainly a more consistent view than setting an arbitrary date prior to birth when an unborn should get some form of protection, which is what most countries do.

I am not advocating this view but it has a coherence that I don't think deserves to be dismissed out of hand as "stone-age" or "barbaric"

 

agree with Guy, this is not intrinsically a religious issue and it's ludicrous to dismiss pro-lifers as if they were advocating flat earth theory or hanging for buggery. Ethically I can entirely understand why people think that unborn babies are lives to be protected. I disagree with Alabama but there is way too much smugness on here for what is a complex dilemma. 

Sorry, but if men could get pregnant they would sell morning after pills by the checkout, next to the Smints and the chewing gum.

No, because if men gave birth they would the ones experiencing sex based oppression.  This is why gender is bullshit. Women aren't objectified and oppressed because of lady brains.