The Alabama senate has voted to ban abortion after six weeks

Hotblack Desiato

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

This thread is a cesspit, bile being produced by both sides of the argument in equal amounts. I'm ashamed to have a view on this.

Both sides? That's a Trumpian level of nonsense, there. There is only one side throwing out emotive BS like "pro-abortion" and "murder".

I am against the Alabama proposal but would love to hear a debate on the medical rationale for 6 week limit. If there is one, I am willing to consider it although my view is unlikely to change.

There is no medical rationale for it, a six week embryo (in reality, four weeks) is a tiny blob.

d8491prj5boyvg

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no medical rationale for it, a six week embryo (in reality, four weeks) is a tiny blob.

Ok, so this sounds like the rationale, no? That it is a blob that anti-abortionists are ok with? At 12 weeks it is fully formed, so the anti-abortionists are not ok with that? I think we need to embrace this fact and refute it on its merits as opposed to ignoring it, like your previous post tried to do. This only serves to undermine the pro-choice argument.

Hotblack Desiato

Knock yourself out.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Ok, so this sounds like the rationale, no? That it is a blob that anti-abortionists are ok with? At 12 weeks it is fully formed, so the anti-abortionists are not ok with that? I think we need to embrace this fact and refute it on its merits as opposed to ignoring it, like your previous post tried to do. This only serves to undermine the pro-choice argument.

who says it is fully formed at 12 weeks?

Life of Slavery

'Why won't those ebil Nazis just let me murder my unborn baby?? Waah!!'.

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who says it is fully formed at 12 weeks?

Pampers!

https://www.pampers.com/en-us/pregnancy/pregnancy-calendar/12-weeks-pregnant

Joking aside, most sources say it is (let's not argue the semantics of fully formed - it is well formed or has most of the recognisable features)

d8491prj5boyvg

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Knock yourself out.

ok well this dismissive approach does not help the cause at all.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Pampers!

https://www.pampers.com/en-us/pregnancy/pregnancy-calendar/12-weeks-pregnant

Joking aside, most sources say it is (let's not argue the semantics of fully formed - it is well formed or has most of the recognisable features)

you'll have to do a bit better than that. What do you mean by fully formed? I dont believe i've ever heard those words used by the pro-choice side. what exactly is your argument? You seem to think you have thought of an absolute doozy of an argument so what is it?

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you'll have to do a bit better than that. What do you mean by fully formed? I dont believe i've ever heard those words used by the pro-choice side. what exactly is your argument? You seem to think you have thought of an absolute doozy of an argument so what is it?

Well whatever stage of development you define it to be. My point is that other pro-choicers always avoid the debate. Let's engage. This argument is avoiding the debate. At 12 weeks, the stage of development is such that anti-choicers do not agree with abortion. Why is this argument moot? This is the question we need to answer. I don't have an answer but would like to engage on this basis. Picking off side arguments and dealing with them, like this thread and this engagement within this thread, just looks like we are putting up a smokescreen.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Well whatever stage of development you define it to be. My point is that other pro-choicers always avoid the debate. Let's engage. This argument is avoiding the debate. At 12 weeks, the stage of development is such that anti-choicers do not agree with abortion. Why is this argument moot? This is the question we need to answer. I don't have an answer but would like to engage on this basis. Picking off side arguments and dealing with them, like this thread and this engagement within this thread, just looks like we are putting up a smokescreen.

the anti-choicers dont agree with abortion at any time.

Igotadose

There'a already an abortion discussion thread that's active here, and plenty of good material there for you to look at. We really don't need yet another one.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057961470

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the anti-choicers dont agree with abortion at any time.

You still didn't engage with the question! I am learning a lot here.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

You still didn't engage with the question! I am learning a lot here.

you haven't asked a question. what is it you are trying to ask?

citygal93

Crock Rock wrote: »

Bravo and well done. A step in the right direction and a step towards a more humane society. Six weeks is more than sifficient time to get an abortion if you want one.

https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2019/0516/1049771-alabama-abortion-law/

6 weeks? I wouldn't even know I was pregnant at 6 weeks as my cycle is so long.

d8491prj5boyvg

Igotadose wrote: »

There'a already an abortion discussion thread that's active here, and plenty of good material there for you to look at. We really don't need yet another one.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057961470

Fair enough, but I think I proved my point. There is a failure to engage, a smokescreen approach and a tendency to deal in absolutes. This leads to a standoff and we get decisions like Alabama. We have ourselves to blame.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Fair enough, but I think I proved my point. There is a failure to engage, a smokescreen approach and a tendency to deal in absolutes. This leads to a standoff and we get decisions like Alabama. We have ourselves to blame.

you still have not put forward an argument. there is nothing to engage with.

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you still have not put forward an argument. there is nothing to engage with.

I did:

My point is that other pro-choicers always avoid the debate. Let's engage. This argument is avoiding the debate. At 12 weeks, the stage of development is such that anti-choicers do not agree with abortion. Why is this argument moot?

d8491prj5boyvg

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is "we"?

I speak as a pro-choice person here in relation to the pro-choice argument. If you are pro-life I respect your beliefs and do not include you in the we I refer to.

Faugheen

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Well whatever stage of development you define it to be. My point is that other pro-choicers always avoid the debate. Let's engage. This argument is avoiding the debate. At 12 weeks, the stage of development is such that anti-choicers do not agree with abortion. Why is this argument moot? This is the question we need to answer. I don't have an answer but would like to engage on this basis. Picking off side arguments and dealing with them, like this thread and this engagement within this thread, just looks like we are putting up a smokescreen.

I’ll engage.

The problem with anti-choicers is they protest against people making a decision for themselves, for the simple reason that they don’t like it.

Anti-choicers don’t agree with abortion in any circumstance, not just past 12 weeks.

The reason why 12 weeks is there so those who find themselves pregnant after rape can get a termination without being judged or having to go through the courts system. Anti-choicers choose to completely ignore this time and time again.

At the end of the day, people would mind their own business when a child a born, but yet they feel the need to give their opinion and make it their business when it’s unborn.

It’s simple, if you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one. Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

I did:

and i responded to that. anti-choicers do not agree with abortion full stop. whether it is 12 weeks, 6 weeks, 18 weeks, whatever, they do not agree with abortion. it is nothing to do with the stage of development.

ohnonotgmail

Romario 12 wrote: »

I think you're overlooking a valid point in limiting abortion. Some people believe that the unborn at a particular stage of development deserves consideration and protection.

Do you disagree that there is a point in the pregnancy where the unborn deserves protection?

at a certain point they do. that point is long after 12 weeks.

ohnonotgmail

Romario 12 wrote: »

What's an anti choicer?

self-explanatory.

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and i responded to that. anti-choicers do not agree with abortion full stop. whether it is 12 weeks, 6 weeks, 18 weeks, whatever, they do not agree with abortion. it is nothing to do with the stage of development.

If that were the case then there wouldn't be a move to 6 weeks, it would be a move to full-on ban. We need to argue on clear scientific grounds why 12 weeks is ok.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

If that were the case then there wouldn't be a move to 6 weeks, it would be a move to full-on ban. We need to argue on clear scientific grounds why 12 weeks is ok.

a move to 6 weeks is a ban on abortion. It is a requirement that is impossible to meet.

ohnonotgmail

Romario 12 wrote: »

It's not self explanatory, if you think abortion should illegal after 12 weeks are you an anti choicer as you want to take away the mother's rights?

personally i have no issue with abortion up to 16 to 18 weeks.

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a move to 6 weeks is a ban on abortion. It is a requirement that is impossible to meet.

Again you are avoiding the question of providing a scientific rationale, or even acknowledging that that is an important component of effectively promoting the pro-choice argument. This has been very useful for making my point. I do not wish to send this thread down a rabbit hole so will leave it there!

Faugheen

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

If that were the case then there wouldn't be a move to 6 weeks, it would be a move to full-on ban. We need to argue on clear scientific grounds why 12 weeks is ok.

Roe v Wade doesn’t allow for an all-out ban in this case.

And 12 weeks allows for a lot of circumstances. It gives people chance to take in the process and make a decision for themselves.

Why does this bother you so much? As I said, don’t have an abortion if you don’t want one, and mind your own business.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Again you are avoiding the question of providing a scientific rationale, or even acknowledging that that is an important component of effectively promoting the pro-choice argument. This has been very useful for making my point. I do not wish to send this thread down a rabbit hole so will leave it there!

the scientific rationale for 12 weeks has been repeated ad nauseum on this and other abortion threads. The anti-choice crowd dont care for scientific rationale. God tells them they are right and that is all the argument they need.

ohnonotgmail

Faugheen wrote: »

Roe v Wade doesn’t allow for an all-out ban in this case.

And 12 weeks allows for a lot of circumstances. It gives people chance to take in the process and make a decision for themselves.

Why does this bother you so much? As I said, don’t have an abortion if you don’t want one, and mind your own business.

they're playing the "i'm really pro-choice but ..." card.

ohnonotgmail

Romario 12 wrote: »

Do you realise that is possible to be an atheist and believe abortion should be illegal?

I'm an athiest and believe abortion should be illegal at around the 12 week mark.

why?

Faugheen

Romario 12 wrote: »

Do you realise that is possible to be an atheist and believe abortion should be illegal?

I'm an athiest and believe abortion should be illegal at around the 12 week mark.

Nah, you’re lying. You’ve set up a new account, and what you’ve done is argue with pro-choicers despite claiming to be pro-choice yourself.

SusieBlue

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Well whatever stage of development you define it to be. My point is that other pro-choicers always avoid the debate. Let's engage. This argument is avoiding the debate. At 12 weeks, the stage of development is such that anti-choicers do not agree with abortion. Why is this argument moot? This is the question we need to answer. I don't have an answer but would like to engage on this basis. Picking off side arguments and dealing with them, like this thread and this engagement within this thread, just looks like we are putting up a smokescreen.

This little chestnut never fails to amuse me.
Pro-Choice people do not avoid the debate, pro-choice people have been debating the very issue with full transparency ad nauesem across this site for a number of years.
Look back on many of the previous threads and you will find quite a lot of people who had to make the same points over and over, to refute misinformation spread by the Love Boats gang.
The reason you may struggle to find someone to argue with on this thread is that we are sick of it.
We are sick of fighting the same arguments and fake news stories that have been floating around since the 8th was voted in.

You seem to think you've stumbled upon a nugget of genius, a trump card, with your assertion that the fetus/baby is almost fully formed at 12 weeks.
No one denied this, but it just isn't relevant.
It might be almost fully formed (debatable, a human fetus and baby elephant look almost identical at that gestation) , but it isn't sentient and cannot survive independently to the woman in whose womb it resides.

Why should the rights of a living, breathing citizen with a life and a family and friends who love her be compromised because of the contents of her uterus?
Why should a pre 12 week pregnancy trump her well being?
Why should anyone else assume to impose on the course of her life, when we don't know her circumstances, never will, and won't personally have to live with the consequences?

The 12 week cut off point was recommended by the citizens assembly as it gave most women roughly 8 weeks from the time she finds out she is pregnant to decide what course to take.
It allows women who have been raped or abused terminate without having to disclose their trauma.

But be it 6 weeks, 12 weeks or 28 weeks, those against abortion will not agree to it so its actually irrelevant.
12 weeks was a good compromise as it covers most cases where an abortion is needed.

d8491prj5boyvg

SusieBlue wrote: »

This little chestnut never fails to amuse me.
Pro-Choice people do not avoid the debate, pro-choice people have been debating the very issue with full transparency ad nauesem across this site for a number of years.
Look back on many of the previous threads and you will find quite a lot of people who had to make the same points over and over, to refute misinformation spread by the Love Boats gang.
The reason you may struggle to find someone to argue with on this thread is that we are sick of it.
We are sick of fighting the same arguments and fake news stories that have been floating around since the 8th was voted in.

You seem to think you've stumbled upon a nugget of genius, a trump card, with your assertion that the fetus/baby is almost fully formed at 12 weeks.
No one denied this, but it just isn't relevant.
It might be almost fully formed (debatable, a human fetus and baby elephant look almost identical at that gestation) , but it isn't sentient and cannot survive independently to the woman in whose womb it resides.

Why should the rights of a living, breathing citizen with a life and a family and friends who love her be compromised because of the contents of her uterus?
Why should a pre 12 week pregnancy trump her well being?
Why should anyone else assume to impose on the course of her life, when we don't know her circumstances, never will, and won't personally have to live with the consequences?

The 12 week cut off point was recommended by the citizens assembly as it gave most women roughly 8 weeks from the time she finds out she is pregnant to decide what course to take.
It allows women who have been raped or abused terminate without having to disclose their trauma.

But be it 6 weeks, 12 weeks or 28 weeks, those against abortion will not agree to it so its actually irrelevant.
12 weeks was a good compromise as it covers most cases where an abortion is needed.

This is closer to the sort of debate that we should be engaging in. Thank you. I don't know the correct definition for gestation at 12 weeks, but it is not acceptable for the Alabama senate. Surely the strongest argument on this is to hammer home why this doesn't matter, on the grounds that they are concerned with (I don't believe they will listen to the rights of the mother as they clearly don't care much for this).

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the scientific rationale for 12 weeks has been repeated ad nauseum on this and other abortion threads. The anti-choice crowd dont care for scientific rationale. God tells them they are right and that is all the argument they need.

Fair enough if the point has been made elsewhere. I think these are the best grounds to win this argument and should be the approach when dealing with Alabama. Those who follow God are not the swing voters so engaging with them is futile IMO

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Fair enough if the point has been made elsewhere. I think these are the best grounds to win this argument and should be the approach when dealing with Alabama. Those who follow God are not the swing voters so engaging with them is futile IMO

the decision in alabama was made by approximately 2 dozen men. they do not care for pro-choice arguments. they are irrelevant to them. they have an agenda (and that agenda does not end with alabama) and no argument to the contrary will change their mind.

Hotblack Desiato

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

At 12 weeks, the stage of development is such that anti-choicers do not agree with abortion.

Arguing against a false premise such as the above is a waste of time tbh.

d8491prj5boyvg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the decision in alabama was made by approximately 2 dozen men. they do not care for pro-choice arguments. they are irrelevant to them. they have an agenda (and that agenda does not end with alabama) and no argument to the contrary will change their mind.

That is shocking alright. Are they religious? Because then it is clear what the motivation is. If not then I would have some hope.

d8491prj5boyvg

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Arguing against a false premise such as the above is a waste of time tbh.

The events at Alabama attest to this - 12 weeks is not agreeable to those who voted against. I don't think there is any argument there

Faugheen

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

The events at Alabama attest to this - 12 weeks is not agreeable to those who voted against. I don't think there is any argument there

What are you talking about?

The only reason there's any limit in Alabama is because of Roe v Wade.

Second time I've explained this to you and you've just ignored it. These people would ban it outright if they could.

Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise. Anti-choice don't want abortions under any circumstances or timeframes.

d8491prj5boyvg

Faugheen wrote: »

What are you talking about?

The only reason there's any limit in Alabama is because of Roe v Wade.

Second time I've explained this to you and you've just ignored it. These people would ban it outright if they could.

Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise. Anti-choice don't want abortions under any circumstances or timeframes.

Hmmm. I think you are missing my point. I'm not arguing the 6 week limit. The argument surrounds the 12 week limit - that is what needs to be argued in Alabama. If the person on the other side of the argument is irrational and does not want to engage in the debate then yes, you are right, let's set up camp and declare war. They won't listen to a well-made argument on the grounds that they set (which I believe to be the strongest grounds for winning this debate). I have some faith in humanity but some would say that might be naive.

ohnonotgmail

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Hmmm. I think you are missing my point. I'm not arguing the 6 week limit. The argument surrounds the 12 week limit - that is what needs to be argued in Alabama. If the person on the other side of the argument is irrational and does not want to engage in the debate then yes, you are right, let's set up camp and declare war. They won't listen to a well-made argument on the grounds that they set (which I believe to be the strongest grounds for winning this debate). I have some faith in humanity but some would say that might be naive.

very naive. the alabama legislators have no interest in debate.

Igotadose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

very naive. the alabama legislators have no interest in debate.

This. It's laughable to think they're interested in any kind of debate based on science. They want to challenge Roe so they cooked up something and rammed it through their own legislature, once their gerrymandered districts worked out.

nozzferrahhtoo

Crock Rock wrote: »

But you would have spent your last few minutes in the womb in absolute agony.

Nearly all choice based abortions, close to 98%, happen in or before week 16 of gestation.

At that point there would be no YOU to experience any "agony" at all. You are simply making things up here.

By all means come up with anti abortion arguments if you want, but try and make them real and not fantasy if you would be so kind.

bfa1509 wrote: »

A human life that we have absolutely no right to interfere with.

You might want to check your facts here. We DO have that right. That is what the recent referendum did.

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

At 12 weeks it is fully formed

That is simply not true. You must be using a weird definition of "fully formed". There is a whole lot of development still to happen after week 12. Loads of it.

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

Well whatever stage of development you define it to be. My point is that other pro-choicers always avoid the debate.

I am pro-choice. One of the more vocal ones on this entire site as it happens. By all means show me a single debate I have avoided. Ever. Least of all the "point" you ask about in this post which is the main one I have dealt with over and over for the last 18 months.

If you have any questions about what I have written over and over again however, ask.

Carfacemandog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's this [/URL]


It wouldn't be the first time though that pro-choice lobbyists have bullied and taken advantage of young women who found themselves in vulnerable circumstances to advance their political aims, just ask Norma McCorvey -

McCorvey would later assert that she had been the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.

Aaaaand she was full of sh*t, and a paid shill for 5he anti abortion crowd

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52733886

The woman behind the 1973 ruling legalising abortion in the US is seen admitting in a new documentary that her stunning change of heart on the issue in later life was "all an act".

In her "deathbed confession", as she calls it, a visibly ailing McCorvey says she only became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid by evangelical groups.

"I was the big fish," she said. "I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they'd put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say.

"That's what I'd say. It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress. Of course, I'm not acting now."

She added: "If a young woman wants to have an abortion, that's no skin off my ass. That's why they call it choice."

Jenneke87

I would have died three times in Alabama it seems. I'm glad that I live in a country where the medical complications surrounding my pregnancies were taken seriously and the pregnancy was safely terminated before both of us died....

volchitsa

Yosef Narrow Weasel wrote: »

If that were the case then there wouldn't be a move to 6 weeks, it would be a move to full-on ban. We need to argue on clear scientific grounds why 12 weeks is ok.

No that's not why they're trying for a six week ban. It's because the US constitution doesn't allow a complete ban, so the current (rather successful) strategy of anti-choicers is to reduce access as far as possible by various means, thus making it effectively inaccessible to all but the most well-off women.

(And most prolife activists are probably grand with that loophole, truth be told - leaves them the option if they ever need one themselves: "The only moral abortion is my own")

LeYouth

Here we go again!