Alabama abortion ban: Republican senate

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

I found it horrifying, and indeed virtually infanticide. 

And this from a Democrat-controlled Senate. What have they become ? 

They haven't become anything they weren't in the beginning.  They've simply had to wait until our national culture "caught up".  IMO, they did with that bill exactly the same thing Legislators in Montgomery have attempted to do with this bill.  They've gone to an extreme to make a point.  Support in this state for forcing a woman to carry a rapist's baby would be EXTREMELY low.  It wouldn't pass a popular vote, be assured.  But when other states are going to such extremes to "protect" women's rights, it can cause those who support life to strike out in a similar fashion.  I don't think those who wrote or passed this legislation expect it to ever be adopted.  They simply want to cause an SC review of the whole question and I think that is a good thing.  Let the STATES decide on this issue.  

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I dunno EoT.... the SC is more conservative than it has been for a long time. Could Alabama be using this as a stalking horse to get Wade vs Roe overturned ? 

Irrelevant. All courts, even the Supreme Court are obliged to rule according to precedent. Legal abortion during the first trimester is the law of the land. Federal laws trump conflicting state laws so this is just political theater.

[Agent0range]

56 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, read the bill again,. make sure you understand what it says,  you really should not talk about education, if you can't  understand simple things.

Ok, I will just quote the 3 exceptions for you.  FROM THE BILL.  

Quote

• "To avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother"
• For ectopic pregnancy
• If the unborn child has a lethal anomaly.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Agent0range

[RoofGardener]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Irrelevant. All courts, even the Supreme Court are obliged to rule according to precedent. Legal abortion during the first trimester is the law of the land. Federal laws trump conflicting state laws so this is just political theater.

Not necessarily, OverSword. Consider the equal rights laws: the "precedent" -  and the "law of the land" -  was that blacks where inferior. New laws where passed by Congress and - ultimately - the Supremes had to analyse them and rule on their applicability to any given case. 

What was the Federal Law on abortion prior to Wade vs Roe ? 

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

Let the STATES decide on this issue.  

That’s not going to happen. If that were the case then people who couldn’t afford to travel to a state I which it was legal, also known as the other 49 states, would be forced to carry to term. In other words it would effect the poor more than the wealthy and be an unfair law.

[ExpandMyMind]

35 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Really?

Yes, really, nobody is trying to allow babies to be murdered after they have been born. Kinda mental that I have to even type those words.

[ExpandMyMind]

28 minutes ago, aztek said:

facts are alien concept to you i see, do yourself a favor, keep ignoring me, when you reply you sound dumber than  a door  bell

At least I've located the shift key on my keyboard.

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Not necessarily, OverSword. Consider the equal rights laws: the "precedent" -  and the "law of the land" -  was that blacks where inferior. New laws where passed by Congress and - ultimately - the Supremes had to analyse them and rule on their applicability to any given case. 

What was the Federal Law on abortion prior to Wade vs Roe ? 

RvW was about if a father could prevent an abortion or if a woman had control over her own body. Prior to that it was left to the states. It has now been ruled on at a federal level many times each ruling creating rules about different aspects of abortion and each ruling strengthening the legal legitimacy of abortion as a whole. At this point the only thing that could change previous rulings would be if the Congress and Senate passed a law making abortion illegal and the president signed it. Period.

Edited May 15, 2019 by OverSword

[RoofGardener]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Yes, really, nobody is trying to allow babies to be murdered after they have been born. Kinda mental that I have to even type those words.

Umm.. wasn't that what was suggested by the Democratic representative for New York a few weeks ago ? 

[RavenHawk]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Yes, really, nobody is trying to allow babies to be murdered after they have been born. Kinda mental that I have to even type those words.

And yet, that is the conversation, to allow babies to be murdered.

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That’s not going to happen. If that were the case then people who couldn’t afford to travel to a state I which it was legal, also known as the other 49 states, would be forced to carry to term. In other words it would effect the poor more than the wealthy and be an unfair law.

Actually the law states that a woman who travels to another state for an abortion will also be convicted, I believe.

And since when are laws that disenfranchise the poor not allowed in the US?

[+OverSword]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

 

[ExpandMyMind]

Just now, RavenHawk said:

And yet, that is the conversation, to allow babies to be murdered.

 

To the uneducated, sure.

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

That’s not going to happen. If that were the case then people who couldn’t afford to travel to a state I which it was legal, also known as the other 49 states, would be forced to carry to term. In other words it would effect the poor more than the wealthy and be an unfair law.

The culture within each state should hold sway on such issues.  I believe that women who chose abortion could be accommodated with transportation and they'd not be hounded or sanctioned in any serious way for their choice.  Perhaps it would even lead to fewer overall unwanted pregnancies because of the inconvenience compared to today's situation.  Life being disposable is an abomination whether before birth or at the end of our time here.  Abortion is an industry in this country and it is driven by profits as much as any other industry.  Those that claim some form of sanctification over a woman's choice can show their devotion to that ideology by providing services to women who cannot afford to travel out of state.  We're talking an INCONVENIENCE, not a physical hardship or incarceration.  The life that is being snuffed out has no voice in the matter.  Also, don't imagine that the other 49 would all allow abortion.  The citizens of Alabama are not a group of aliens that are not representative of American values in general.  I think you'd be surprised at the numbers of states that would restrict this practice more severely if they had the option.

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

To the uneducated, sure.

In reality – the real world.  So if you think everyone but you is uneducated, then fine.

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

 

And since when are laws that disenfranchise the poor not allowed in the US?

True. Regardless abortion is legal in the USA and federal law trumps conflicting state law otherwise I think known as the rule of supremacy 

[Jerry Gallo]

57 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

FTFY

If you were a true believer in science, you would know the correction you made is patently absurd. Science (embryology) actually supports pro-life stance far more than pro-abortion one.

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.. wasn't that what was suggested by the Democratic representative for New York a few weeks ago ? 

Do a few Google searches, mate. It's complete bull**** to say the Dems want to kill babies after they're born. If a baby survives an abortion, which is basically unheard of, the baby is cared for like a normal patient. It's pure propaganda.

[ExpandMyMind]

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

In reality – the real world.  So if you think everyone but you is uneducated, then fine.

 

I think if someone ignores science and holds his opinion on a scientific subject higher than an actual scientist of that discipline, then of course he's uneducated. And an idiot, to boot.

Edited May 15, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[+and-then]

 

 

1

8 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Actually the law states that a woman who travels to another state for an abortion will also be convicted, I believe.

And since when are laws that disenfranchise the poor not allowed in the US?

Then you believe something that's not in the bill:

The Alabama legislation, which passed by a vote of 25-6 on Tuesday night, makes it a class A felony for a doctor to perform an abortion in the state, punishable by 10 to 99 years in prison. Women would not face criminal penalties for getting an abortion.

[ExpandMyMind]

3 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

If you were a true believer in science, you would know the correction you made is patently absurd. Science (embryology) actually supports pro-life stance far more than pro-abortion one.

Really? Are there any papers or journals you'd like to quote for me?

[Vorg]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Do a few Google searches, mate. It's complete bull**** to say the Dems want to kill babies after they're born. If a baby survives an abortion, which is basically unheard of, the baby is cared for like a normal patient. It's pure propaganda.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/01/30/virginia-gov-suggests-baby-can-be-killed-right-after-birth-what-it-went-from-fetus-to-infant-and-hardly-anyone-noticed-719235

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam prompted an outcry after appearing to suggest that a baby, after being born, might still be murdered “if that’s what the mother…desired.”

The horrific remarks came as the Democratic governor defended a state bill allowing a woman to abort an unborn child until the moment the baby is born.

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I think if someone ignores science and holds his opinion on a scientific subject higher than an actual scientist of that discipline, then of course he's uneducated. And an idiot, to boot.

So you admit that you are uneducated too?  I guess that is fair.  But seriously, who is ignoring science?  This is the opinion of a doctor and lawmaker.

[+and-then]

This whole outrage is a tempest in a teapot anyway.  Have you watched Kavanaugh's voting record?  He's another Roberts.  No way RvW gets overturned.  America is quite okay with the butchering of the millions.  We're far more apt to err on the side of NY's law than on these from southern states.  

[ExpandMyMind]

@and then

I stand corrected. (Can't quote you for some reason)