(Politic) Alabama passes bill to ban abortion completely

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I'll just stick this in here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-split-on-abortion-but-majority-wants-roe-v-wade-to-endure

Even Fox News listeners are only 21% against Roe v Wade when they know not much about the law. 6% when provided with details. So Silentpony might be right. But then I haven't seen Republicans go against any of the silliness that comes from this Administration and what it encourages over the last 2 years. You won't get change unless Republicans change their minds (similar to Nixon being impeached by his own party, it would never have happened if it was only Dems.)

Dreiko:
It's not a sex issue, it's a forcing your values down people's throats issue. I guess this is how the conservatives felt when gay marriage was legalized or something.

BS. Legalizing gay marriage does not force people who are not gay to be gay and marry people of the same sex. This is forcing women to have no say over their own bodies. Women can be raped and they will be forced to give birth. Women will die due to this. Who is dying from gay marriage? If this is not a sex issue, name the men who will die as a result of this? To make it worse, Alabama is one of the states with a higher maternal mortality rate already so this will only make a bad situation worse. Women's bodies, health and lives are forever changed by giving birth.

This is both an issue of removing women's control over their own bodies and one of forcing one's religious beliefs onto others. Gay marriage does neither, as they are not forcing people to be gay and go get married themselves, accepting that others do so has no bearing on the lives and freedom of the people who disagree with it. Here, they are forcing women who had no say in being raped to not only have no say in what happened to them then, but also to have no say to what happens to them afterwards and being forced to risk their health and lives forever changing their bodies to accommodate the whims of religious fanatics. No where near comparable to any other laws that exist.

Worgen:

Silentpony:

Worgen:

I really doubt that would happen. The american public would need to be more out for blood before we would impeach a judge or there would have to be hard evidence of a crime committed by one of them. It would be bad for republicans, but potentially not as bad as you would think, their base is almost single issue about abortion and they can make enough sounds so people think they will do something about other things. I mean look at how many "fiscally conservative" people vote republican despite the fact they always balloon the debt and will never lessen military spending. Plus, democrats tend to like to play by the rules so while a minority would be down for trying to impeach, the majority probably wouldn't be.

that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

One probable reason she is hesitant is because this will push things to the breaking point, its entirely possible that while the law is on congresses side, they don't have any method to actually enforce it. Like the Justice Department is trumps, no ifs ands or buts, so they can't be relied upon to do anything congress wants and the republicans are also trumps. I'm not sure what he could do to get them to turn on him and the supreme court is... well not trumps but certainly conservative and would probably back him. The worry is that congress will push as hard as they can and we will find out just how broken our system is if they are actually incapable of doing anything. I think that actually might be the full downfall of the US government.

To quote Sulu, "Fly her apart then!"
What use do we have in people to protect the constitution when they ignore attacks on the constitution because it might endanger the constitution?
Trump Jr ignores Subpoenas and we let it slide. Trump sr ignores the electoral college and we let it slide.
Pelosi needs to take a hint from Picard and say 'This far, no further' force a supreme court decision. Have judges on record saying a president can ignore an impeachment, can ignore an arrest warrant, can nuke LA without consequences.
Push Trump supporters to their absolute edge. Lets see how far is too far. Lets see if Alabama is willing to sacrifice Congress for Abortion, or risk war with Illinois for abortion law.
Play chicken with them, see how far their conviction goes when Congress dismantles the Alabama national guard and closes all borders.

Lil devils x:

Dreiko:
It's not a sex issue, it's a forcing your values down people's throats issue. I guess this is how the conservatives felt when gay marriage was legalized or something.

BS. Legalizing gay marriage does not force people who are not gay to be gay and marry people of the same sex. This is forcing women to have no say over their own bodies. Women can be raped and they will be forced to give birth. Women will die due to this. who is dying from gay marriage? If this is not a sex issue, name the men who will die as a result of this? To make it worse, Alabama is one of the states with a higher material mortality rate already so this will only make a bad situation worse. Women's bodies, health and lives are forever changed by giving birth.

This is both an issue of removing women's control over their own bodies and one of forcing one's religious beliefs onto others. Gay marriage does neither, as they are not forcing people to be gay and go get married themselves, accepting that others do so has no bearing on the lives and freedom of the people who disagree with it. Here, they are forcing women who had no say in being raped to not only have no say in what happened to them then, but also to have no say to what happens to them afterwards and being forced to risk their health and lives forever changing their bodies to accommodate the whims of religious fanatics. No where near comparable to any other laws that exist.

But someone getting married affects my marriage! How could I love my partner after someone else getting married.

We could just follow the Stefan Molenyuex doctrine. Bad men in society are the fault of women having babies with bad men. Becuase, it could never be the fault of bad men. It's a woman problem. (I have a friend who, after a nice relationship of 6 years, was suddenly lock in a house, striped naked, tied up and raped multiple times by her boyfriend. He's a bad man, but, until that week, everyone thought he was good. Molylenuex's rationality breaks down when you realise that bad men usually pretend to be good to get away with this stuff. In Molyenuex's world, it was her fault. But I couldn't tell he was bad, neither did she.) But, then a common trait of bad men is not taking responsibility for their own issues

Anyway, I'm sympathetic to foetus' rights. I don't know how or why they should supersede the mother rights, especially all the time. I'd be willing to say there is a point where more stringent requirements for abortions. 6 weeks is not that time. We have a requirement in my state where you need permission from two doctors to do an abortion in the third trimester. So it becomes more of a medical necessity rather than choice like in the first two trimesters. I'm happy with this as most of the time the mother has the stronger right, but transfers to the foetus later to recognise that it should supercede as some stage. It's not perfect, but all rights conflict have similar problems. Either one person is dominate, effecting the other negatively or we could try to share.

Lil devils x:

Dreiko:
It's not a sex issue, it's a forcing your values down people's throats issue. I guess this is how the conservatives felt when gay marriage was legalized or something.

BS. Legalizing gay marriage does not force people who are not gay to be gay and marry people of the same sex. This is forcing women to have no say over their own bodies. Women can be raped and they will be forced to give birth. Women will die due to this. Who is dying from gay marriage? If this is not a sex issue, name the men who will die as a result of this? To make it worse, Alabama is one of the states with a higher maternal mortality rate already so this will only make a bad situation worse. Women's bodies, health and lives are forever changed by giving birth.

This is both an issue of removing women's control over their own bodies and one of forcing one's religious beliefs onto others. Gay marriage does neither, as they are not forcing people to be gay and go get married themselves, accepting that others do so has no bearing on the lives and freedom of the people who disagree with it. Here, they are forcing women who had no say in being raped to not only have no say in what happened to them then, but also to have no say to what happens to them afterwards and being forced to risk their health and lives forever changing their bodies to accommodate the whims of religious fanatics. No where near comparable to any other laws that exist.

That's not really the argument though is it. The thing they have against gay marriage isn't that people will be forced to get gay married, it's that it fundamentally alters/destroys/whatever the institution of marriage and forces people to live with such a reality. It's kind of apples an oranges but it is a concern about values so just because it's a different sort of concern doesn't make it not about values.

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples, which to those people indeed feels like oppression in the same way, as silly as it may seem to us.

First you gotta understand the other side, then dialogue can begin. We gain nothing from constructing straw-men and refusing to see how people actually think about these things. How we feel and whether or not we disagree with them is something that enters the discourse AFTER this step.

And again, a lot of women voted for those people too, so they can't really exercise power in removing their own power, cause even if that action is implemented it was partially they who implemented it. It's kinda like willingly becoming a slave out of your own volition and being free to sign away your freedoms...kinda like marriage, in fact!

Dreiko:

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples

They are normal couples.

I've yet to see a straight couple explain how their marriage was ruined by same-sex marriages.

When that happens, let me know.

Dreiko:

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples

Oh the poor whittle babies.

Lil devils x:
Most pregnancy complications are not known to be severe in advance, they usually do not know the severity until it is already to that point with the exceptions of diseases such as cancer. In most maternal mortality cases though, they would have no way of knowing how severe it was going to be in advance to be able to qualify for a "serious high risk" exemption under the criteria required here. This will definitely increase maternal mortality further when it has already been increasing in the US as it is.

Did not know that information before, it makes their actions all the more insidious an indefensible here.

Dreiko:
That's not really the argument though is it. The thing they have against gay marriage isn't that people will be forced to get gay married, it's that it fundamentally alters/destroys/whatever the institution of marriage and forces people to live with such a reality. It's kind of apples an oranges but it is a concern about values so just because it's a different sort of concern doesn't make it not about values.

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples, which to those people indeed feels like oppression in the same way, as silly as it may seem to us.

First you gotta understand the other side, then dialogue can begin. We gain nothing from constructing straw-men and refusing to see how people actually think about these things. How we feel and whether or not we disagree with them is something that enters the discourse AFTER this step.

And again, a lot of women voted for those people too, so they can't really exercise power in removing their own power, cause even if that action is implemented it was partially they who implemented it. It's kinda like willingly becoming a slave out of your own volition and being free to sign away your freedoms...kinda like marriage, in fact!

Oki doki, living under some kind of rock since at least the formative years is one thing, but when people regularly try to lift the rock to let a bit of sunlight in only for it to get pulled straight back down again to continue baseless rambling about the evil "sjws," "communism/socialism," "feminazis" and the "abnormal gay married folk" at every opportunity kinda makes the whole attempt at claiming everyone else needs to be "understanding of the other side for dialogue to begin" come off as astoundingly blind hypocrisy at very best when clearly you haven't taken in a single thing others have tried to patiently explain over bugger-knows how long now.

Case in point: everyone with half a functioning mind already knows full well what anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion people believe and think, it's not a new phenomenon...they've been shouting and enforcing it upon everyone for last few bloody centuries! Where have you been??? There aren't any mysteries there, dude. Any significant resistance against it has really been a relatively recent human development in history. If anyone needs to engage in "understanding the other side" it's the people with their evangelical stubborn dumb heads in the sand refusing to empathise with people even slightly different to them while voting to take away their rights and ignoring vast swathes of scientific data. And just cause some women have been conditioned to believe in ideas that harm them (the same as men have often been, through different avenues), it is no fucking justification to place their ignorant stupidity on all women everywhere. The real phenomenon here is how anyone can talk with such confidence about matters they have no experience in while refusing to even listen to others who clearly do have experience over and over and over again. Is it from an upbringing that failed to teach the simple lesson one could ever be wrong?

fucking hell. Just launch the nukes already. We've failed as a species. Our worlds fucked up when we give rapists and inbreeders(which I guarantee there is a huge supply of in Alabama) more protection than their victims.

Taking bets now that everyone who said yes to this bill is guilty of rape and/or incest.

Dreiko:
That's not really the argument though is it. The thing they have against gay marriage isn't that people will be forced to get gay married, it's that it fundamentally alters/destroys/whatever the institution of marriage and forces people to live with such a reality. It's kind of apples an oranges but it is a concern about values so just because it's a different sort of concern doesn't make it not about values.

Institutions have no rights. They are there to serve us. They are made to represent what the majority think is a good law/ way to live/ moral structure etc. We change these all the time, depending on what society demands. King George III didn't want America to break away from England. The tradition was America was a colony of England. How you think means that America shouldn't never even tried to break away. And the only reason is... tradition. The America society decided that it was more beneficial to not remain part of the realm. Because the society decided that this tradition was no longer necessary.

It is quite possible that your a Conservative, you care about traditions. It automatically scores a point in keeping that tradition. That is not a selling point to either Liberal or Libertarians. That's not what either of these two value (usually some form of Freedom). Tradition doesn't have the same effect.

Also, the tradition before (hetero only marriage) forced a bunch of people to live with that reality. In other words, they completely understand how you feel. Tell me why the old reality was better than the new? Because if its got something to do with tradition, I'm going to point to the previous paragraph. The old tradition also forced people to never marry the person they loved. So not only did it force an ideology and it forced a physical restraint onto people. When a Liberal or Libertarian talk about Same Sex Marriage, this later bit is the most important. It not about forcing ideology. It's about getting rid of the physical means of force. If a tradition break a freedom of a person, it's going to be a target

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples, which to those people indeed feels like oppression in the same way, as silly as it may seem to us.

First you gotta understand the other side, then dialogue can begin. We gain nothing from constructing straw-men and refusing to see how people actually think about these things. How we feel and whether or not we disagree with them is something that enters the discourse AFTER this step.

Firstly, I'm highly aware that people find 'the gays' morally repugnant. Mostly, it comes from some passage in the Bible/Torah/Qur'an. I understand that it comes from some divine being that people think is important. Problem is, when people say 'understand their viewpoint', they actually mean believe it or submit to it. Understanding doesn't mean agreement.

Just because these text are important to people, doesn't mean they are important to a majority. Jefferson's Wall is a tradition specifically to deal with this. You can use your religious background as argument. But don't expect Bible passages to hold any weight. Because for the majority of people, they don't. Your understanding of marriage comes from your religious background. You don't get to impose that on anyone else, UNLESS we accept it. We used to accept hetero-only marriage. Now we don't, based on ideologies that have nothing to do with religion.

So you might ask... well, Jefferson's Wall is a tradition. Why arent the Liberals or Libertarians against it. Becuase it gives the same right to everyone. No one can take your religion away from you. But you cant take religion off anyone else either. Laws will never be based on Sharia law or the Ten Commandments becuase it religious (unless there is a good reason too. Eg. I happen to like the commandments against killing, stealing but not so hot on not taking the Lords name in vain.)

The same thing happens in the abortion debate. I dont care about the current positon. It doesnt score points for existing. I dont care about Bible passage. I do care about the freedoms of both individuals and which one might take precedence. Becuase, either way, someone's rights are going to be impinged.

Silentpony:
Play chicken with them, see how far their conviction goes

I'm afraid it might go dangerously far. And/or they won't recognise the significance of what they are doing. Lot of pissed off deplorables with guns who won't fight for the future of the US, but will murder innocent people and pretend that's what they are doing.

This is what rape culture is. It is a rapist who was put into the Presidency over a woman, so he could nominate a rapist into the supreme court, and so we could have rapists receive less punishment than the women they rape. (By the way, rape victims should not be receiving ANY punishment)

Dreiko:

Lil devils x:

Dreiko:
It's not a sex issue, it's a forcing your values down people's throats issue. I guess this is how the conservatives felt when gay marriage was legalized or something.

BS. Legalizing gay marriage does not force people who are not gay to be gay and marry people of the same sex. This is forcing women to have no say over their own bodies. Women can be raped and they will be forced to give birth. Women will die due to this. Who is dying from gay marriage? If this is not a sex issue, name the men who will die as a result of this? To make it worse, Alabama is one of the states with a higher maternal mortality rate already so this will only make a bad situation worse. Women's bodies, health and lives are forever changed by giving birth.

This is both an issue of removing women's control over their own bodies and one of forcing one's religious beliefs onto others. Gay marriage does neither, as they are not forcing people to be gay and go get married themselves, accepting that others do so has no bearing on the lives and freedom of the people who disagree with it. Here, they are forcing women who had no say in being raped to not only have no say in what happened to them then, but also to have no say to what happens to them afterwards and being forced to risk their health and lives forever changing their bodies to accommodate the whims of religious fanatics. No where near comparable to any other laws that exist.

That's not really the argument though is it. The thing they have against gay marriage isn't that people will be forced to get gay married, it's that it fundamentally alters/destroys/whatever the institution of marriage and forces people to live with such a reality. It's kind of apples an oranges but it is a concern about values so just because it's a different sort of concern doesn't make it not about values.

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples, which to those people indeed feels like oppression in the same way, as silly as it may seem to us.

First you gotta understand the other side, then dialogue can begin. We gain nothing from constructing straw-men and refusing to see how people actually think about these things. How we feel and whether or not we disagree with them is something that enters the discourse AFTER this step.

And again, a lot of women voted for those people too, so they can't really exercise power in removing their own power, cause even if that action is implemented it was partially they who implemented it. It's kinda like willingly becoming a slave out of your own volition and being free to sign away your freedoms...kinda like marriage, in fact!

Why would you assume that I, or anyone else for that matter, does not understand how these religious fanatics think? As I have stated on here before, as a child I was taken by these religious fanatics and tied to a chair and made to read the bible aloud while they turned the pages. I have read the Bible more times than most Christians and have even translated it from Hebrew. In that same school that the US government required us to attend on the reservation, a man raped hundreds of children "to get the devil out of them". In that same school hundreds of kids were beaten and abused and told that it was the beliefs of our ancestors that were evil and that we needed to be saved. Although the late Senator John McCain helped put a stop to the man raping the children, the school's other abuses continued and is still open to this day. The only way for my family to escape that abuse was to leave the reservation, the homeland of my ancestors, as this is actually part of the US governments forced assimilation of our people. The US government is part of the reason why this sort of fanaticism is so rampant in the US, as the US government has not only condoned such behavior, but encouraged and facilitated it to continue for generations.

When we moved away from the reservation, we still lived in the "Bible Belt" where I still reside now. When a local church school closed down, they took over the local public school district where I was attending school here. They started putting "Jesus died for us" pamphlets in my locker at school and people would walk through the halls quoting bible verses loudly nonstop. They added Bible study before and after school and in some classes started saying prayer before starting class when the teachers from the church school started replacing the teachers in public school. They fired a teacher for having alcohol in a locked cabinet in her home after one of the students babysat for her and saw it and started a petition to remove her over it. They petitioned to have sex ED removed from the curriculum nd started passing out chastity rings. The biology teacher quit and was replaced with a pastor as a substitute because they would not agree to not teach evolution and instead promote creationism.

I understand EXACTLY how these people think and where this leads. I am surrounded by them. They believe they have the "divine right" to enforce what they believe to be "God's will" upon others by any means necessary. They promote fear as a means to control the masses to force them to conform to their will. This is about conformity, they are afraid their children will not conform to their will if exposed to "gays" and will commit sin if allowed to have abortions. They are extremely xenophobic because anything that is perceived as different is seen as a threat to undermine their authority. They are afraid if they are surrounded by "openly gay people" that their own child might find it acceptable to be gay and that is one of their worst fears, so they try to limit exposure at all costs and want to control the narrative that being gay is the worst thing a person can do to attempt to prevent that from happening. Their "values" are about controlling others, and forcing their will upon them, not just their own values. That is why they indoctrinate and force their will upon their children while they are impressionable and never allow them to make the decision for themselves. That is how these people think, and it is disgusting and should not only not be tolerated, it should be confronted and stopped so that this mindset cannot be fostered as it has been proven to be malignant and harmful to society. I do understand how they think, I still have to deal with them every day, at home and work.

There being women who have been convinced to vote against their interests is not a new thing here, hell there were even women against the right for women to vote and work, that does not somehow validate that to not be against women, they do not somehow become a poster child to show that this is somehow not targeting to be harmful to women, because it is. In addition, those who voted for these men did not necessarily vote for them due to this issue. It is telling however, that the only people who voted for this bill were white men, not women. There are women in the legislature but they did not vote for it. This decision to remove a woman's right to her own body was decided entirely by men.

trunkage:

Lil devils x:

Dreiko:
It's not a sex issue, it's a forcing your values down people's throats issue. I guess this is how the conservatives felt when gay marriage was legalized or something.

BS. Legalizing gay marriage does not force people who are not gay to be gay and marry people of the same sex. This is forcing women to have no say over their own bodies. Women can be raped and they will be forced to give birth. Women will die due to this. who is dying from gay marriage? If this is not a sex issue, name the men who will die as a result of this? To make it worse, Alabama is one of the states with a higher material mortality rate already so this will only make a bad situation worse. Women's bodies, health and lives are forever changed by giving birth.

This is both an issue of removing women's control over their own bodies and one of forcing one's religious beliefs onto others. Gay marriage does neither, as they are not forcing people to be gay and go get married themselves, accepting that others do so has no bearing on the lives and freedom of the people who disagree with it. Here, they are forcing women who had no say in being raped to not only have no say in what happened to them then, but also to have no say to what happens to them afterwards and being forced to risk their health and lives forever changing their bodies to accommodate the whims of religious fanatics. No where near comparable to any other laws that exist.

But someone getting married affects my marriage! How could I love my partner after someone else getting married.

We could just follow the Stefan Molenyuex doctrine. Bad men in society are the fault of women having babies with bad men. Becuase, it could never be the fault of bad men. It's a woman problem. (I have a friend who, after a nice relationship of 6 years, was suddenly lock in a house, striped naked, tied up and raped multiple times by her boyfriend. He's a bad man, but, until that week, everyone thought he was good. Molylenuex's rationality breaks down when you realise that bad men usually pretend to be good to get away with this stuff. In Molyenuex's world, it was her fault. But I couldn't tell he was bad, neither did she.) But, then a common trait of bad men is not taking responsibility for their own issues

Anyway, I'm sympathetic to foetus' rights. I don't know how or why they should supersede the mother rights, especially all the time. I'd be willing to say there is a point where more stringent requirements for abortions. 6 weeks is not that time. We have a requirement in my state where you need permission from two doctors to do an abortion in the third trimester. So it becomes more of a medical necessity rather than choice like in the first two trimesters. I'm happy with this as most of the time the mother has the stronger right, but transfers to the foetus later to recognise that it should supercede as some stage. It's not perfect, but all rights conflict have similar problems. Either one person is dominate, effecting the other negatively or we could try to share.

As I have said before on these forums, I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control or taken lightly, however, I think it is a decision that should be made by a patient and her physician, not by legislatures. It should not be illegal and it should not be promoted as a form of birth control. It should instead be treated a serious medical issue that no one other than the patient and their doctor should have a say in.

Neurotic Void Melody:

Lil devils x:
Most pregnancy complications are not known to be severe in advance, they usually do not know the severity until it is already to that point with the exceptions of diseases such as cancer. In most maternal mortality cases though, they would have no way of knowing how severe it was going to be in advance to be able to qualify for a "serious high risk" exemption under the criteria required here. This will definitely increase maternal mortality further when it has already been increasing in the US as it is.

Did not know that information before, it makes their actions all the more insidious an indefensible here.

Even less discussed but far more common is the lifelong impact of childbirth to women's health. While some women can have a complication free pregnancy, childbirth is one of the leading causes of life long disability in women. Even when we manage to reduce maternal mortality rates, we still struggle with addressing the severe and permanent damage to a woman's health that can leave her permanently disabled from childbirth. All of the body changes and what one's body has to endure during pregnancy can permanently damage organs and/or cause organ failure, cause chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, chronic pain, and can damage the spinal cord and increase the likelihood of breaking bones. Many do no realize the severe impact this can actually have a woman's body, and they may never be able to return to work afterwards. This is a decision that will affect the rest of a woman's life. Even worse, many women think these things will be short term and due to not being able to return to work, they often lose their ability to apply for disability benefits due to loss of credits and then are left disabled, not able to work and not able to receive benefits. In states like Alabama this is made even worse due to their severe lack of assistance for women, often leaving them with no options. This is one of the "traps" women find themselves in where they are forced to be dependant on a spouse in order to survive at all, and is common in abusive relationships as a reason why the woman cannot leave their abuser. This bill targeting rape and incest victims makes it that much worse for the victims to never be able to escape their abuser.

Silentpony:

Worgen:

Silentpony:
So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

The reason they are doing this is because currently the courts are conservative with possibly no swing vote. Kennedy was the swing vote on abortion before but now that we have two trump appointees, there is a good chance that they will vote to overturn the federal abortion law. This is why they are pulling this, because they are sure the court will side with them and abortion will be outlawed nationwide.

Oh I know. And they'll give it their best shot. But the blowback if it does succeed will be monstrous for Republicans. Like losing the 2020 election, and Congress and having all of Trump's supreme court nominees impeached(which yes you can impeach them) and having a Dem president throw on new judges and a new law passed, challenged and affirmed by the courts with 6 months.

The people pushing this also want to strip the right to vote from people who have committed a felony.

Abortion will be a felony

Miscarriage will be treated as abortion - a felony.

They want birth control to be treated as an abortion - a felony.

Oh look if they get what they want, it becomes awfully easy for a woman having sex to have committed a felony and to have lost her right to vote.

Gee, I wonder why they'd want that to happen?

RaikuFA:
fucking hell. Just launch the nukes already. We?ve failed as a species.

Nah! Just nuke Alabama. /jk

Baffle2:

Dreiko:

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples

They are normal couples.

image

CaitSeith:

RaikuFA:
fucking hell. Just launch the nukes already. We?ve failed as a species.

Nah! Just nuke Alabama.

That's not generally considered a safe way of performing abortions. But 100% effective, I guess.

EDIT: Seriously though, lots of talk of companies boycotting the state. On one hand, yeah, see why you'd do that. On the other, if you need an abortion, being unemployed as well isn't to help.

Thaluikhain:
EDIT: Seriously though, lots of talk of companies boycotting the state. On one hand, yeah, see why you'd do that. On the other, if you need an abortion, being unemployed as well isn't to help.

If people want to help, they should listen to what abortion rights organizations in Alabama want, not write off the state as irredeemable.

Dreiko:
Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples, which to those people indeed feels like oppression in the same way, as silly as it may seem to us.

Feels like a rather trivial matter to be "oppressed" for. Sure it goes the other way around as well, but laws usually have better than trivial rationale behind them. I hope.

Silentpony:
that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

Aside from DC police being the wrong law enforcement body (that falls to the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives for cases of contempt of Congress), you're dead on. That and that if held in contempt of congress they have to hold them in the House's jail, which might possibly cause logistical issues depending on how many ignored subpoenas there end up being.

Schadrach:

Silentpony:
that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

Aside from DC police being the wrong law enforcement body (that falls to the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives for cases of contempt of Congress), you're dead on. That and that if held in contempt of congress they have to hold them in the House's jail, which might possibly cause logistical issues depending on how many ignored subpoenas there end up being.

This is a different tune than what you were singing about Kavanaugh and Ford.

Dreiko:

First you gotta understand the other side, then dialogue can begin. We gain nothing from constructing straw-men and refusing to see how people actually think about these things. How we feel and whether or not we disagree with them is something that enters the discourse AFTER this step.

I do understand the other side. And that other side refuses to understand my side, and refuses to dialogue with us. So fine, no more dialogue. If they wanted to talk, we gave them 8 years to talk, and everytime we tried to talk they actively spit in our face and slapped our hands.

Now they march with tiki torches making Nazi chants. Appeasement doesnt work.

Dreiko:

That's not really the argument though is it. The thing they have against gay marriage isn't that people will be forced to get gay married,

To be fair, had Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission gone differently, there was the very real risk that such people would be forced to have gay marriages performed in their churches, and that their pastors might be compelled to officiate gay weddings.

Dreiko:

And again, a lot of women voted for those people too,

You can go farther than that - the bill's author and the governor who signed it into law are both women as well. That's what I actually find amusing about all the "bunch of old white men want to control women's uteruses" talk - it's a law written by a woman and ultimately approved by another woman.

Saelune:

Schadrach:

Silentpony:
that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

Aside from DC police being the wrong law enforcement body (that falls to the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives for cases of contempt of Congress), you're dead on. That and that if held in contempt of congress they have to hold them in the House's jail, which might possibly cause logistical issues depending on how many ignored subpoenas there end up being.

This is a different tune than what you were singing about Kavanaugh and Ford.

How so?

It is literally the job of the Sergeant at Arms to arrest people who ignore Congressional subpoenas and place them in the House's jail until the issue of contempt is resolved (which generally means complying with the subpoena). Regular judges have that same authority. The only real defense is if the House is issuing subpoenas outside their authority (that is if they were demanding people appear before them for reasons unrelated to the proper business of the legislature). Which you'll notice the White House has been actively suggesting even though it's probably a losing battle. It's an obvious stalling tactic in the hopes of being able to drag the fight out for political reasons, so Trump can sell it as Democrats being irrationally after his presidency even after "NO COLLUSION! NO OBSTRUCTION!".

It is not in the authority of the FBI to investigate state level crimes, and it is not in the authority of the Montgomery County, MD police to start investigations based on media statements or statements made to Congress about events over three decades old. Literally, if Ford actually wanted an investigation into her accusation, she just has to file a complaint with the Montgomery County, MD police, as I've pointed out time and again. She could have done so at any time in the past 30-odd years, and she could do so even now. Kavanaugh is not immune to the law, especially not state law.

I have no words fit for this utter debacle in Alabama and Georgia.

Seriously, I'm disgusted on a level that's close to visceral rage. Alabama is now a state where if a relative rapes an underage family member, and that victim aborts the pregnancy in the first few weeks (while it's still basically just a fertilized egg) she and the doctor will get more jail time than the rapist pedo relative.

Even if we leave aside every other part of this mess...That alone is one of the most unacceptably horrible things I've ever heard of.

Bill sponsor Sen. Clyde Chambliss, a Republican, specified that the law would not prohibit the destruction of fertilized eggs used for in-vitro fertilization, only those conceived within a woman's body. "The egg in the lab doesn't apply. It's not in a woman. She's not pregnant," Chambliss said, in floor debate with Democratic Sen. Rodger Smitherman.

When there is doubt this is targeting women's autonomy in favour of genuinely protecting the sanctity of life, Clyde Chambliss will set the record straight.

They want to turn back the clock, so be it. George Carlin is now resurrected.

CaitSeith:

Baffle2:

Dreiko:

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples

They are normal couples.

image

Right..?

They disagree. You first have to start from there.

Lil devils x:

There being women who have been convinced to vote against their interests is not a new thing here, hell there were even women against the right for women to vote and work, that does not somehow validate that to not be against women, they do not somehow become a poster child to show that this is somehow not targeting to be harmful to women, because it is. In addition, those who voted for these men did not necessarily vote for them due to this issue. It is telling however, that the only people who voted for this bill were white men, not women. There are women in the legislature but they did not vote for it. This decision to remove a woman's right to her own body was decided entirely by men.

I never said this wasn't anti-woman, I said it wasn't men trying to control women's bodies. It's still anti-woman, just a different form of it.

It's infantalizing to treat women who can be just as religiously fundamentalist as any man with being against their best interests, they're not more so than any muslim who denies themselves bacon due to some silly belief. Women can just opine differently about morals and what's coming after death and they can enact those policies and you have to start seeing that as equivalent to men doing the same if you wish for true equality to come into place.

Men voted for women to get the vote when women had no vote to give those men. If they really wanted to control women's bodies they'd never have done so. You're treating it as an obvious thing simply because it's right and you don't celebrate it cause you shouldn't have to celebrate the bare minimum which puts you in a place where instead of counting your blessings you're dissatisfied when one of them is threatened.

Pretending we live in a world where everyone gets what they ought to have and that merely deserving rights means you will be afforded them diminishes the great achievement it is when people end up actually gaining them.

erttheking:

Dreiko:

Basically, the forcing is in having to live in a society which treats gay married folks the same as normal couples

Oh the poor whittle babies.

Black and hispanic folks and arabs who believe in the muslim faith all are way more homophobic actually. I remember reading in britain about people being against lgbt education in schools and they weren't white babies, they were tan ones.

It's not the race, it's the religiosity.

Dreiko:

Right..?

They disagree. You first have to start from there.

Start there and go where?

Everybody here knows that these people disagree. But there's no rational compromise on this: one side denies the basic humanity of the other and wishes to invade their right to privacy in order to enforce their own rigid moral code; the other side wants to be left alone. One side is entirely right.

What movements do you expect people to make to meet these people halfway?

Dreiko:

Lil devils x:

There being women who have been convinced to vote against their interests is not a new thing here, hell there were even women against the right for women to vote and work, that does not somehow validate that to not be against women, they do not somehow become a poster child to show that this is somehow not targeting to be harmful to women, because it is. In addition, those who voted for these men did not necessarily vote for them due to this issue. It is telling however, that the only people who voted for this bill were white men, not women. There are women in the legislature but they did not vote for it. This decision to remove a woman's right to her own body was decided entirely by men.

I never said this wasn't anti-woman, I said it wasn't men trying to control women's bodies. It's still anti-woman, just a different form of it.

It's infantalizing to treat women who can be just as religiously fundamentalist as any man with being against their best interests, they're not more so than any muslim who denies themselves bacon due to some silly belief. Women can just opine differently about morals and what's coming after death and they can enact those policies and you have to start seeing that as equivalent to men doing the same if you wish for true equality to come into place.

Men voted for women to get the vote when women had no vote to give those men. If they really wanted to control women's bodies they'd never have done so. You're treating it as an obvious thing simply because it's right and you don't celebrate it cause you shouldn't have to celebrate the bare minimum which puts you in a place where instead of counting your blessings you're dissatisfied when one of them is threatened.

Pretending we live in a world where everyone gets what they ought to have and that merely deserving rights means you will be afforded them diminishes the great achievement it is when people end up actually gaining them.

Who is " they", not the "same men" voted for women to have the right to vote. All men =\= the same men who vote to take away a woman's right to her own body, only some of them have done so. The issue of course is this is just one of many attempts to " police a woman's body", If a man is sexually assaulted they do not attempt to blame it on his dress or say that "he had it coming" as they do women because they do not view or treat men and women's bodies the same. As you can see here in Majestic Manatee's post, this is entirely about policing women's bodies, as the fertilized egg on it's own is irrelevant to them:

Majestic Manatee:

Bill sponsor Sen. Clyde Chambliss, a Republican, specified that the law would not prohibit the destruction of fertilized eggs used for in-vitro fertilization, only those conceived within a woman's body. "The egg in the lab doesn't apply. It's not in a woman. She's not pregnant," Chambliss said, in floor debate with Democratic Sen. Rodger Smitherman.

When there is doubt this is targeting women's autonomy in favour of genuinely protecting the sanctity of life, Clyde Chambliss will set the record straight.

They want to turn back the clock, so be it.

Dreiko:

You're treating it as an obvious thing simply because it's right and you don't celebrate it cause you shouldn't have to celebrate the bare minimum which puts you in a place where instead of counting your blessings you're dissatisfied when one of them is threatened.
Pretending we live in a world where everyone gets what they ought to have and that merely deserving rights means you will be afforded them diminishes the great achievement it is when people end up actually gaining them.

What is that supposed to mean? I am put in a place where I "am dissatisfied when my rights are threatened"? I was violently raped as a child by a man I had never spoken to. The stress of that lead to me to wake up in a hospital with my stomach being pumped after they brought me back from suicide. If I had become impregnated with the rapists baby, there is nothing they could have done to stop me from ending my life at that point. I know I am not the only one who feels that way in that situation. My best friend was raped, my sisters were raped, my cousin was raped many of the girls I grew up with were raped, my own grandmother was raped. I was forced to fight off would be kidnappers, I was forced to fight off a man who was trying to murder me in my sleep. I have been threatened so many times throughout my life by men I have lost count. This is how women are forced to live in the US, like we're somehow safer here than elsewhere right? This should just be something we should be okay with and count our blessings? Why would "count your blessing's" even enter your head as something to say to someone in the first place?

Pretending we live in a world where everyone gets what they ought to have and that merely deserving rights means you will be afforded them diminishes the great achievement it is when people end up actually gaining them.

What kind of shit is this? seriously, you think that women do not appreciate the "rights they have" because they could have it worse or something? So we should become vigilantes to be able to be safe and have bodily autonomy or something because the government will not protect us? What exactly do you mean we should do by this BS? The women who suffer and die should just continue to do so and count their blessings because you think they haven't fought hard enough to earn them or some shit? IDk what you meant by that, but seriously, it would have been better if you hadn't. It is a crock when you thought it in the first place and even worse when you actually said it.

Silvanus:
Start there and go where?
...
What movements do you expect people to make to meet these people halfway?

"Meet me in the middle", says the unjust man.
You take a step forward and he takes a step back.
"Meet me in the middle", says the unjust man.

That is the only direction any attempts to reaching a compromise with anti-lgbt people will go. If you give them an inch, they'll take the entire fucking coastline. The only solution is to tell them where to shove their beliefs and let them die mad.

Dreiko:

Black and hispanic folks and arabs who believe in the muslim faith all are way more homophobic actually. I remember reading in britain about people being against lgbt education in schools and they weren't white babies, they were tan ones.

It's not the race, it's the religiosity.

Hm, considering this information, let me process it and see how it affects my reply.

My reply has not changed.

So I shall repeat myself. Oh, the wittle babies.

Dreiko:

They disagree. You first have to start from there.

Ok. They disagree. Fuck em. We'll move on, with or without them. Question. Do you think we got as far as we did by asking nicely? By asking the religious assholes who think that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals should be stoned if they could just be nicer?

I think it's very clear you've never had to deal with a day of persecution in your life.

Silvanus:

Dreiko:

Right..?

They disagree. You first have to start from there.

Start there and go where?

Everybody here knows that these people disagree. But there's no rational compromise on this: one side denies the basic humanity of the other and wishes to invade their right to privacy in order to enforce their own rigid moral code; the other side wants to be left alone. One side is entirely right.

What movements do you expect people to make to meet these people halfway?

If you refuse to make a rational compromise, you lose the right to expect them to care about one either, so then this becomes a battle over power and over who oppresses whom, where in some cases you will have abortion getting banned like we see here, which is no good. Just because we disagree that this thing is oppression to them it doesn't mean that they don't feel like they are indeed oppressed by it. Even if you don't care for compromise and want to just crush them into obscurity, you still have to tackle their action as though it really is coming from oppressed people, even if you yourself disagree that they are.

Ultimately, my point here is highlighting that treating people who claim to be oppressed as inherently moral in whatever action they take is the problem, since then you will make a system come into place where being oppressed in your mind gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want and feel justified.

I can see valid arguments for why some people from all sides are not oppressed even though they believe that they are. Our first step should be removing the sainthood attached to being perceived as being oppressed from our culture.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here