• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alabama Senate approves near-total ban on abortion; sends bill to the governor

Barnacle said:
"The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life."
Click to expand...

Balanced, not completely denied or criminalized, as many of these new laws seek to do.
 
HumblePi said:
If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, there should be an accompanying provision that mandates the male who impregnated the woman to be financially responsible for her hospital bills and forced to take custody and bear all the responsibility for raising that child until the age of 21.
Click to expand...

That's already law; it's called child support. And the father has no say regarding abortion. But since it will impact him for the next 18 years at least, shouldn't the father have the right to insist on an abortion if he doesn't want to support a child over the next two decades? Or he should have the right to opt out, and then the mother could choose whether she wants to raise the child herself or abort. If the woman has a choice, so should the man.
 
Verax said:
Might as well outlaw interracial marriage and homosexuality while we're going backwards.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's perfectly congruent to killing a child. Wow.
 
Barnacle said:
"The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life."
Click to expand...

like i said its a rights issue, it wont be going back to the states
various regulation within reason is fine . . banning is not. Hence it wont be going back to the states.

think of it like legal marriage . . maybe a magistrate can do it . . maybe a judge or anybody allowed state by state but it cant be banned.
 
Waddy said:
That's already law; it's called child support. And the father has no say regarding abortion. But since it will impact him for the next 18 years at least, shouldn't the father have the right to insist on an abortion if he doesn't want to support a child over the next two decades? Or he should have the right to opt out, and then the mother could choose whether she wants to raise the child herself or abort. If the woman has a choice, so should the man.
Click to expand...

Nope. He makes them he has the obligation to support them until they are 18.
And no again, not his health at stake when it comes to carrying a child to term so he has no say whatsoever.
 
ElChupacabra said:
It's the "death by one thousand cuts" strategy. I do think this will continue to gain traction in some of the other states which favor this kind of legislation, though I don't think this will stand in the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's all unConstitutional and will be overturned in the higher courts...and at least one of the governors that signed, Ohio's I think, maybe Iowa's, admitted he knew that.

So all these people from the Dark Ages are supporting their politicians wasting their tax $ on useless legislation...I guess their states dont have any more critical issues that need to be addressed? Issues that can actually be reformed to help their citizens? :roll:
 
wolfsgirl said:
Balanced, not completely denied or criminalized, as many of these new laws seek to do.
Click to expand...

Alabama bill:

"The bill does include exceptions for when the life of the mother was at risk; when the fetus had a lethal anomaly that would result in stillbirth or death after childbirth, or when a mental illness could lead to the woman’s death or that of her child."
 
MTAtech said:
Voters need to stop voting for the legislators that pass thee bills.
Click to expand...

The point of the bills *is* pandering for votes.

These bills are all unConstitutional and as I wrote, at least one governor admitted it when he signed the bill.

The sad thing is the ignorant are reeled right in and indeed do fall for the false propaganda.
 
Barnacle said:
I believe abortion yes/no should be up to each individual state. Some states allow executions, others don't.
Click to expand...

States rights is often used to protect bigotry. Always has, always will.
 
That abortion is mostly being outlawed in former slave states is revealing.
 
TurtleDude said:
Actually, based on physical issues and a lack of sanitation, San Francisco is apparently a more accurate place to smear with such a term
Click to expand...
Yes, if we were to talk in literal meaning then you are correct. As such now we can state that both are ****holes, one figurative one literal.
 
Verax said:
Might as well outlaw interracial marriage and homosexuality while we're going backwards.
Click to expand...

That is their ulterior motive. Through the abortion ban it is the desire of the GOP in Alabama to "encourage" non-white and LGBT state residents to move out of the state.
 
TurtleDude said:
So preemies that now survive and earlier and earlier times -when they would have surely died a couple decades ago, has no relevance in this debate?
Click to expand...
That is correct since the technology and its availability is not uniformly available.
 
trixare4kids said:
Nope. He makes them he has the obligation to support them until they are 18.
And no again, not his health at stake when it comes to carrying a child to term so he has no say whatsoever.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem fair. In most cases of abortion, it's not her health at stake either. Most abortion seekers are healthy young women who could easily carry a baby to term. To deny the father any say seems patently unfair. Sexist even.
 
Barnacle said:
Post 8 ?!? :lol:
Click to expand...

it left off the 9, not hard to understand
fact remains your post changed nothing about facts and reality :lol:
 
MTAtech said:
I agree -- even for the conservatives on the SCOTUS, who are itching to overturn Roe, this bill is too blatant. It has no provision for rape or incest.
Click to expand...

It supports a consistent argument tho: if the unborn is a person, you could only use self-defense as an argument (to save the mother's life) to kill it. It will be interesting to see how they address the IVF clinics in their states when they demand that all the unused frozen embryos be turned over to the state for refrigerated foster care (forever).

Enabling the continuation of the horror of a violent, traumatic attack on a woman and the opportunity for her attacker to legally remain in her life for 18 years as the father of the child (in some states rapists can assert their right to fatherhood and then custody when released) is about the least Christian thing I can think of.
 
prometeus said:
That is correct since the technology and its availability is not uniformly available.
Click to expand...

not to mention 24 weeks is still 50% and it will never go under 21 weeks due to lung development

but viability is still only a small part. the risk to the health and life of the mother is still present and a major factor. Unless we invent an external eco-womb and teleportation and that procedure is zero risk to the woman technology and individual viability (which is not about technology) are sub-issues and dont matter to the discussion of "more" restrictions.
 
Barnacle said:
Alabama bill:

"The bill does include exceptions for when the life of the mother was at risk; when the fetus had a lethal anomaly that would result in stillbirth or death after childbirth, or when a mental illness could lead to the woman’s death or that of her child."
Click to expand...

But no exception for a woman that was impregnated against her will.

Sorry, but either women are complete citizens with the right to their own bodies and medical decisions, or not. IF women are not allowed the same rights to bodily autonomy and privacy in medical decisions as men, then that is a violation of the 14th amendment. Can we force men to give their blood or organs to keep another person alive? No, then we can not force a woman to do so.
 
jwzg said:
Pay for your own. You want people out of your bedroom, right?
Click to expand...

I guess you really dont want fewer abortions then right? Just to punish women? Force your own judgement on them?

Because free or subsidized birth control reduces accidental pregnancies. And because it seems more explanation is likely needed, I'll be more clear: thus it reduces abortions.

It also ends up saving taxpayers' $$$.

U.S. Taxpayers Save $7 For Every Dollar The Government Spends On Family Planning – ThinkProgress

Publicly Funded Family Planning Services in the United States | Guttmacher Institute

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/journals/MQ-Frost_1468-0009.12080.pdf


Unless you enjoy cutting your own nose off just to spite your face?
 
Waddy said:
That doesn't seem fair. In most cases of abortion, it's not her health at stake either. Most abortion seekers are healthy young women who could easily carry a baby to term. To deny the father any say seems patently unfair. Sexist even.
Click to expand...

Life isn't fair.
Whether you want to believe it or not, abortion is a surgical procedure that can pose health risks.
To address your last sentence, (assuming your gender is male), not your body, not your say.
A woman's right to choose, her privacy rights are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Roe v. Wade.
A woman's right to choose is a private decision guaranteed by the Constitution.

When men grow a uterus their privacy rights will be constitutionally guaranteed as well. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom