The Alabama senate has voted to ban abortion after six weeks

nozzferrahhtoo

Lurching wrote: »

What's the demographic of the senate? I'm guessing they were mostly men in their 50's+? Great idea asking them to make a decision on something like this.

As I understand it.... which admittedly is not very much..... there has recently been two new Trump appointed conservatives added to the supreme court.

So I am led to believe they brought this bill in the knowledge it would be challenged, purely in the hope it will get to the supreme court and get placed before these two new judges.

We can just hope those judges make the right choices. Just like the Dover Trials against Creationism in the class room when the ultimate verdict which was a total EVISCERATION of the creationists..... was levelled at them by a Bush appointed conservative Judge.

Those more in the know than me could you please confirm, correct, or improve my claims there.

nozzferrahhtoo

Crock Rock wrote: »

Six weeks is more than sifficient time to get an abortion if you want one.

Except for the many people who are not even aware they are pregnant in that time frame.

Crock Rock wrote: »

but any later (ie, 12 weeks!) in Ireland is a disgrace.

Is that because you personally say so and decree it to be so? Or because you are actually able to construct a moral and ethical argument to that effect? If the latter.... I am agog. Have at it!

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

If you believe that life begins at conception then you'd believe that it is the right decision.

I believe "life" begins at conception. I just know what that actually means and why it is not relevant. So your "IF....THEN" construct here is false on the face of it.

paw patrol wrote: »

ffs stone age man probably knew the consequence of the hot meat injection....like thousands of years later what more sex education does one need?

Why do people (and you) trot out that nonsense.

Probably because actual science.... rather than screeches amounting to "FFS its all so obvious to ME so it should be to THEM"..... show that one of the strongest correlates with a reduction in unwanted and crisis pregnancies is education.... while one of the strongest correlates with an increase in them is things like Abstinence Programmes.

What is always interesting to me is that the people I have met time and time again who are most stridently AGAINST abortion..... are also the ones most against the idea of earlier and more comprehensive sexual education of minors.

I have never understood that, or managed to reconcile it. Nor has anyone managed to enlighten me as to why this might be.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why so many people here care so much about the women of Alabama I'll never figure out.

Perhaps because for many of us, empathy is not location based?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Was a time in Ireland when the heartbeat bill laws would have been embraced and seen as a good compromise

I am not sure what an appeal to more ignorant times, or decisions being made on a more ignorant basis brings of any use to the discussion however.

Our medical knowledge has massively increased over "once upon a time" and we have much more knowledge now upon which to make informed and intelligent moral and ethical decisions.

A moving tongue in a study might once have impressed people with actual medical knowledge for example, but now we know what it is and is not indicative of.

The problem is there is no moral or ethical argument on offer, least of all from yourself, as to why a heart beat should be a meaningful line in the sand at all. It is entirely arbitrary and subjective with no anchor in anything meaningful. Likely because the "heart" is a symbol of emotion to us, specifically of love, in a conceptual sense despite having nothing at all to do with emotion really.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I can only assume such people have naively bought into the nonsense that a developing human foetus at between 6-12 weeks is nothing but a mere clump of cells as the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

It is not that the alternative does not bear thinking about. It is that the alternative is ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in even the smallest way. While "clump of cells" is perhaps more emotionally dismissive than is warranted..... it is not entirely inaccurate. It is certainly more a "clump of cells" than the cow that went into your last steak which was an actual living sentient agent towards which most people appear to have little or no concern. Except vegetarians and vegans.

The intention of phrases like "mere clump of cells" while perhaps overly emotive is to point out that that "clump" lacks any of the markers than meaningfully ground our moral and ethical concern. And "oh look it's tongue is flapping around in a way that triggers my emotions and empathies" is a vicarious emotional projection, not a moral argument.

KSU

Royal Legend wrote: »

Thats where you could be wrong, the Donald has appointed some very conservative judges to the SC, belief is that they could hold the majority 5 to 4

While Gorsuch would most likely vote to overturn, there are many who have spoke out in the belief that Kavanaugh would not being in favor of such action.

Pro Life views conflict with the belief of many of the justice regarding overturning previous decisions made by the supreme court as a bad precedence (especially in a case where many view it was badly handled in the first place it opens itself to more supreme court decisions being challenged by public opinion with the view of aiming to get them overturned)

elefant

Billy86 wrote: »

It should come as no surprise that Alabama is in the top 5 states for infant mortality rates (not in the good way).

And 15% of Alabamans are illiterate.

It sounds pretty **** to be born in Alabama.

KSU

Billy86 wrote: »

It should come as no surprise that Alabama is in the top 5 states for infant mortality rates (not in the good way).

Because the truth of this is the same as it always seems to be - "pro lifers" tend to stop giving a sh*t once the baby has been squoze out, whether it has a good life or even lives or dies or not.

Except Alabama is ranked very highly for public health funding per capita , high school graduation rates , child immunization and health disparity between educated and non educated

What the don't excel in is obesity and diabetes, physical activity, smoking and you know the stuff that is personal choice of the people..

People always attack pro lifer's about care after birth, similarly pro choicers should take responsibility for choices in life (sex, lifestyle etc)

(For the record I am pro choice but I do believe that personal responsibility comes as part of that choice)

Christy42

KSU wrote: »

Except Alabama is ranked very highly for public health funding per capita , high school graduation rates , child immunization and health disparity between educated and non educated

What the don't excel in is obesity and diabetes, physical activity, smoking and you know the stuff that is personal choice of the people..

People always attack pro lifer's about care after birth, similarly pro choicers should take responsibility for choices in life (sex, lifestyle etc)

(For the record I am pro choice but I do believe that personal responsibility comes as part of that choice)

That doesn't really counter the point about infant mortality and they have come last in education metrics recently https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings.

If they want to slow down abortion rate then make it easy to get. Teach people about birth control and sex education. That is where you put your money. These things will reduce the number of abortions. The law they passed is just religious guff.

Limiting abortions is just increasing the price by train fare or petrol money . It is a bit of showmanship by people not interested in the end result (really I think they just want to force a roe vs Wade challenge with a conservative SC but they will likely lose as opposed to caring about the law).

KSU

Christy42 wrote: »

That doesn't really counter the point about infant mortality and they have come last in education metrics recently https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings.

If they want to slow down abortion rate then make it easy to get. Teach people about birth control and sex education. That is where you put your money. These things will reduce the number of abortions. The law they passed is just religious guff.

Limiting abortions is just increasing the price by train fare or petrol money . It is a bit of showmanship by people not interested in the end result (really I think they just want to force a roe vs Wade challenge with a conservative SC but they will likely lose as opposed to caring about the law).

The previous poster was blaming the mentalities around how they treat people as causing infant mortality the fact is that there is large spending in health and education in the state, whether it is spend well or not is a different question but it doesn't lend itself to say that policy makers don't care about life post birth.

Obesity can have a major impact on infant mortality rates which is why I highlighted as a possible reason for higher infant mortality rates (people need to look after themselves just as much as the government do)

Does education reduce this. Highest abortion rates in the US come from DC and New York while Wyoming has the lowest. Personal values play a more influential role than sex education to be honest with conservative states tending to have a naturally lower abortion rate.

Neyite

Sweetemotion wrote: »

This is what the HSE tells women to do with their unplanned pregnancies.

"If you have an abortion before 9 weeks, you can decide how to dispose of the remains. They can be flushed down the toilet"

Do you think that is caring for the women of Ireland and progressive?

They called them "remains" for my miscarriages too. Also "products of conception" and "foetal tissue" Which factually they were. I got comforted and emotional support but I also had a medical discussion. Caring AND progressive each of the four times I attended the EPU for losses.

And yes, they got flushed down the toilet. Or discarded on sanitary towels being sent to incinerators or landfill. Newsflash: it happens for ALL first trimester losses where you miscarry without medical intervention. It's impossible when you miscarry for up to a week to not pass blood, clots and foetal tissue when you go to the toilet. Unless you pee and sh!t as well as bleed into a nappy for a week and are willing to sift through it all to find something smaller and as delicate a regular egg yolk. It can even be difficult to find even during a surgical D&C according to the last Gynaecologist that I attended.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If tomorrow, by some strange cosmic event, men were suddenly able to get pregnant -- abortion on demand would be available everywhere on Earth within a couple of months.

Sooner I reckon. Abortion pills would be sold like breathmints at tills and Colleges would hand them out in fresher packs if men got pregnant.

Christy42

KSU wrote: »

The previous poster was blaming the mentalities around how they treat people as causing infant mortality the fact is that there is large spending in health and education in the state, whether it is spend well or not is a different question but it doesn't lend itself to say that policy makers don't care about life post birth.

Obesity can have a major impact on infant mortality rates which is why I highlighted as a possible reason for higher infant mortality rates (people need to look after themselves just as much as the government do)

Does education reduce this. Highest abortion rates in the US come from DC and New York while Wyoming has the lowest. Personal values play a more influential role than sex education to be honest with conservative states tending to have a naturally lower abortion rate.

Throwing money at something does not indicate caring. Putting effort in indicates caring.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al.com/news/2018/11/alabama-sees-significant-decline-in-infant-deaths.html%3foutputType=amp

They don't seem to list obesity as a factor themselves but they mentioned access to healthcare and education prominently. The vast majority of people look after their children as best they can. If they are dying age 0 at a higher rate you are doing something wrong (certainly many deaths are still unpreventable at that age but comparing rates can siphon them out).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7971545/

It has been shown to work elsewhere. Maybe New York and DC need to have a look at their own situation? Netherlands is not known for being anti choice so the theory does not hold. Granted the Netherlands is probably a better place to raise a child than anywhere in the US if you are poor so that is likely affecting results.

Also evidence on your own claims? Is it people going to more liberal states to get abortions driving up numbers? I see numbers saying NY and DC have the highest rate of abortion per pregnancy but my own suggestions focus on less crisis pregnancies (which would obviously not affect abortion/pregnancy).

KSU

Christy42 wrote: »

Throwing money at something does not indicate caring. Putting effort in indicates caring.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al.com/news/2018/11/alabama-sees-significant-decline-in-infant-deaths.html%3foutputType=amp

They don't seem to list obesity as a factor themselves but they mentioned access to healthcare and education prominently. The vast majority of people look after their children as best they can. If they are dying age 0 at a higher rate you are doing something wrong (certainly many deaths are still unpreventable at that age but comparing rates can siphon them out).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7971545/

It has been shown to work elsewhere. Maybe New York and DC need to have a look at their own situation? Netherlands is not known for being anti choice so the theory does not hold. Granted the Netherlands is probably a better place to raise a child than anywhere in the US if you are poor so that is likely affecting results.

Also evidence on your own claims? Is it people going to more liberal states to get abortions driving up numbers? I see numbers saying NY and DC have the highest rate of abortion per pregnancy but my own suggestions focus on less crisis pregnancies (which would obviously not affect abortion/pregnancy).

They did actually, it's listed amongst the leading causes

Risk of Congenital malformations is directly related to the mothers weight at each end of the spectrum

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2563


In terms of my claims CDC didnt report non residents so their figures don't tell the entire picture however Guttmacher do

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/sfaa-dc_2.pdf


CDC have a breakdown for out of state (Table 2) which actually shows NY is considerably low in this regard

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm#results

Outlaw Pete

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

You're around long enough to know not to discuss moderation on thread.

Fair enough, you can read my reply here so. Would appreciate a response whenever you get the chance.

Billy86 wrote: »

Because the truth of this is the same as it always seems to be - "pro lifers" tend to stop giving a sh*t once the baby has been squoze out, whether it has a good life or even lives or dies or not.

I work in a residential care unit with many who are prolife and I can assure you it's absolute hogwash that those opposed to elective abortion being available somehow don't care about children who are born. It's something that prochoicers trot out regularly though, but there's as much truth in it as there being a flat Earth.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A group of conservative white men voting to deny women bodily autonomy whose concern for the unborn child ends at childbirth.

More of this nonsense about those against abortion not caring for children when they're born. Millions and millions of American have prolife views you do understand, and what, they all don't care about children? Their sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, abused kids, homeless ones. You telling me that if we got all the fostering records from the states, none of the people that have fostered will have prolife views?

And so what if they are white? Was is it lately with liberals pointing out that people are white all the time. Would it change things if someone was black and expressed similar views? Candace Owen is prolife and she's black. Do you respect her views more as a result? No, right, so why point out someone's race in this context, makes zero sense.

Also, the Alabama Governor that signed the bill into law (Kay Ivey) is a woman. Do you respect her actions any more than the men you cited? No, you don't, you think she's wrong too, and so their gender doesn't matter at all, as if they were 25 old white women you'd still object, right? Of course.

And look, I object too. As while I absolutely support heartbeat bills, I do also think these people were wrong to vote against the exceptions of incest and rape. But I object based on these people's views, not their age, skin colour or gender, that's the difference.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It has no effect on anyone if a woman they dont know has an abortion.

Eh, haven't you forgotten someone?

Christy42

KSU wrote: »

They did actually, it's listed amongst the leading causes

Risk of Congenital malformations is directly related to the mothers weight at each end of the spectrum

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2563


In terms of my claims CDC didnt report non residents so their figures don't tell the entire picture however Guttmacher do

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/sfaa-dc_2.pdf


CDC have a breakdown for out of state (Table 2) which actually shows NY is considerably low in this regard

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm#results

The second link seems to back me up by pointing out that lack of access to contraceptives is highly correlated to needing an abortion?

The first link is handy. I agree then obesity is listed as a reason but so are my other points which they could (and should given the mortality rates) have a bigger push towards including educational and proper access to healthcare.

The 3rd is also useful information for out of state abortions. The Netherlands still seems like it is getting good results with a highly liberal system. As I say other parts of their healthcare and general welfare system may be helping them in this regard over and above NY/DC.

I stand by this is not an effort to stop abortions. Women may have to travel because of it. Some poor women won't be able to admittedly. That seems like it might hurt them and any other children they have a lot more however.

Stopping abortions requires looking at what stops people needing one. This is a political football to force something back into the SC and be judgemental towards women who get pregnant.

MrMusician18

Does this really matter. The democratically elected lawmakers of Alabama have decided to do something, presumably acting on the wishes of their voters.

No more than it was for us, this is their decision.

Walter Bishop

Yes it does really matter. In no state in the US does public support for a total abortion ban even reach 25%.

recedite

Walter Bishop wrote: »

In no state in the US does public support for a total abortion ban even reach 25%.

If you're going to claim such a precise statistic, you should at least cite your sources.

Walter Bishop

recedite wrote: »

If you're going to claim such a precise statistic, you should at least cite your sources.

https://twitter.com/DataProgress/status/1128481533273178112

DEFTLEFTHAND

This isn't a total ban though.

Neyite

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

This isn't a total ban though.

You are correct. Those with the money and ability to travel outside of the state can certainly avail of safe abortions. Those who can't do that will have to contend with unsafe ones at home.

MrMusician18

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Yes it does really matter. In no state in the US does public support for a total abortion ban even reach 25%.

Well then they won't elect them again and the new representatives will over turn it.

Really it's up to the USA and Alabamans to determine the rules they live under.

No more than is here.

Timberrrrrrrr

Neyite wrote: »

You are correct. Those with the money and ability to travel outside of the state can certainly avail of safe abortions. Those who can't do that will have to contend with unsafe ones at home.

Hasn't it been stated that someone travelling for an abortion out of state can be convicted too?

Neyite

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hasn't it been stated that someone travelling for an abortion out of state can be convicted too?

If they are caught. But realistically how would they police it? Do a pregnancy test at state borders on every female between 8 and 60?


A bit like the Irish law before the amendment to our constitution in the nineties permitting travel for abortion.

batgoat

Neyite wrote: »

You are correct. Those with the money and ability to travel outside of the state can certainly avail of safe abortions. Those who can't do that will have to contend with unsafe ones at home.

From what I gather, they can't legally even enforce this as it's unconstitutional.

Crock Rock

Adolf Hitler enacted laws to gas disabled people and people who were considered "untermensch" or a burden to society. I thought we had overcome this.


I'm sorry some disabled and vulnerable people are too much of a stain for your utopian society.

In 2015, a pregnant woman from Ireland was also granted an abortion on the grounds that her the baby would have cystic fibrosis.
The late-term abortions, which were carried out after 24 weeks of pregnancy, were passed by two doctors

The baby would be killed with a strong potassium chloride solution, the same used to execute condemned people, at least they get pain medication, the baby being murdered doesn't. Being injected with a concentrated salt solution like this would feel like an unbearable burning sensation. A horrid thing to inflict on a living being

More than 80 Irish women had abortions in a two-year period on the grounds that their unborn baby would have Down Syndrome.

Simply disgusting.

For people who say it's a foeutus, not a baby. Is it still a foeutus seconds before delivery? If the pregnancy is viable, it's murder, pure and simple.

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote:

For people who say it's a foeutus, not a baby. Is it still a foeutus seconds before delivery? If the pregnancy is viable, it's murder, pure and simple.

Abortion despite the emotive language you are using is not murder.

ancapailldorcha

Crock Rock wrote: »

For people who say it's a foeutus, not a baby. Is it still a foeutus seconds before delivery? If the pregnancy is viable, it's murder, pure and simple.

It's funny how you say that now and yet once it's born the right-on brigade will start spewing bile about single mothers, irresponsibility and the usual drivel. That you use the term murder suggests a complete lack of sincerity to be honest.

Billy86

Crock Rock wrote: »

For people who say it's a foeutus, not a baby. Is it still a foeutus seconds before delivery? If the pregnancy is viable, it's murder, pure and simple.

Please let us know what kinds of work you have done with disadvantaged, neglected and disabled children.

One eyed Jack

Billy86 wrote: »

Please let us know what kinds of work you have done with disadvantaged, neglected and disabled children.

Plenty, though you’ll have to take my word for it as I shan’t be furnishing you with my resume. I’ve spent the last 20 years working with disadvantaged, neglected and disabled children and adults, sometimes with charity organisations, more times with my own resources, both financial and practical.

This is why I know the whole “blah blah don’t care about children when they’re born” bollocks is patently untrue today as it was when the State, the Church and society colluded to rid societies across the globe of the issue of having to regard people who are socioeconomically deprived.

Society still hasn’t learned from the mistakes of the past, only nowadays we call them “homeless hubs” or “family hubs” and “direct provision centres”. What they were then, and what they are now, are human kennels.

You can keep using that stick to beat people with of course, but the fact is that historically speaking, religious conservatives have always done the dirty work and the heavy lifting that intellectual lefty liberal types didn’t want to get their hands dirty with, but has no problem with mocking them on social media, only regarding them as useful for the purposes of identity politics.

Alveda King (Martin Luther Kings niece) has been campaigning against the continued imposition of Planned Parenthood and their devastating effect on the black community by referring to the efforts of PP as black genocide -


Alveda King on Disproportionate Abortion of Black Babies: 'That's Certainly Black Genocide'


And while the organisation made up of predominantly middle class white women are encouraged by their leader Gloria Steinem to “include black women in their advocacy”, as usual they ignore what the black community are actually telling them - they don’t want her kind of help!


How one of America's largest black denominations is campaigning against abortion


It’s all a bit inconvenient for virtue signalling Democrats who historically excluded black people from the party and today still want to keep black people on the margins of white society in the US -


Black People Have Every Right to Criticize the Democratic Party


Let me know if you need a hand with that burden Billy, yeah? Must be really awful for you the white mans burden.

pinkyeye

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty, though you’ll have to take my word for it as I shan’t be furnishing you with my resume. I’ve spent the last 20 years working with disadvantaged, neglected and disabled children and adults, sometimes with charity organisations, more times with my own resources, both financial and practical.

This is why I know the whole “blah blah don’t care about children when they’re born” bollocks is patently untrue today as it was when the State, the Church and society colluded to rid societies across the globe of the issue of having to regard people who are socioeconomically deprived.

Society still hasn’t learned from the mistakes of the past, only nowadays we call them “home hubs” and “direct provision centres”. What they were then, and what they are now, are human kennels.

You can keep using that stick to beat people with of course, but the fact is that historically speaking, religious conservatives have always done the dirty work and the heavy lifting that intellectual lefty liberal types didn’t want to get their hands dirty with, but has no problem with mocking them on social media, only regarding them as useful for the purposes of identity politics.

Alveda King (Martin Luther Kings daughter) has been campaigning against the continued imposition of Planned Parenthood and their devastating effect on the black community by referring to the efforts of PP as black genocide -


Alveda King on Disproportionate Abortion of Black Babies: 'That's Certainly Black Genocide'


And while the organisation made up of predominantly middle class white women are encouraged by their leader Gloria Steinem to “include black women in their advocacy”, as usual they ignore what the black community are actually telling them - they don’t want her kind of help!


How one of America's largest black denominations is campaigning against abortion


It’s all a bit inconvenient for virtue signalling Democrats who historically excluded black people from the party and today still want to keep black people on the margins of white society in the US -


Black People Have Every Right to Criticize the Democratic Party


Let me know if you need a hand with that burden Billy, yeah? Must be really awful for you the white mans burden.

Except it wasn't you that was asked the question?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Feel free to go on your rant about virtue signalling though whilst you tell us all about your voluntary and free work. Fcuking gas. :D:D

Billy86

Uhm jack... did you just out yourself as having a second account?

amcalester

Billy86 wrote: »

Uhm jack... did you just out yourself as having a second account?

Screenshot it before it gets deleted.

One eyed Jack

pinkyeye wrote: »

Except it wasn't you that was asked the question?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Feel free to go on your rant about virtue signalling though whilst you tell us all about your voluntary and free work. Fcuking gas. :D:D

Couple of points there pinkeye -

1. This is an open discussion forum

2. I don’t need to be asked a question to point out someone’s faulty assumptions on which their question is based.

3. I explicitly made the point that I wouldn’t be telling anyone about my voluntary work in suggesting that I wouldn’t be furnishing Billy with my resume, because that would turn the thread into a pissing contest - I don’t assume because of someone’s political, social, religious beliefs, values or world view that this precludes then from voluntary work or even paid work in giving people living in social deprivation the means to help themselves without having to play respectability politics. I’ve met many people in the course of my work whom we would be ideological opposites. I’ve never been put out by it because identity politics aren’t really my thing tbh.

Fcuking gas, isn’t it, that only seconds before I read your post in this thread, I read your post in the other one -

pinkyeye wrote: »

Simple, to score points innit?

It is, innit?

Beam in your own eye there much?

pinkyeye

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Couple of points there pinkeye -

1. This is an open discussion forum

2. I don’t need to be asked a question to point out someone’s faulty assumptions on which their question is based.

3. I explicitly made the point that I wouldn’t be telling anyone about my voluntary work in suggesting that I wouldn’t be furnishing Billy with my resume, because that would turn the thread into a pissing contest - I don’t assume because of someone’s political, social, religious beliefs, values or world view that this precludes then from voluntary work or even paid work in giving people living in social deprivation the means to help themselves without having to play respectability politics. I’ve met many people in the course of my work whom we would be ideological opposites. I’ve never been put out by it because identity politics aren’t really my thing tbh.

Fcuking gas, isn’t it, that only seconds before I read your post in this thread, I read your post in the other one -




It is, innit?

Beam in your own eye there much?

None of your points above justify you DIRECTLY answering a question that wasn't asked of you. :D:D:D:D

One eyed Jack

pinkyeye wrote: »

None of your points above justify you DIRECTLY answering a question that wasn't asked of you. :D:D:D:D

No, they answer the points you made.

Instead of stating the obvious, how about you actually try and contribute to the discussion instead by addressing any of the points I made in with regard to abortion in the US which is what this thread is actually about?

One eyed Jack

Billy86 wrote: »

Uhm jack... did you just out yourself as having a second account?

I don’t think either pinkeye or almacaster gets the joke Billy, ‘twas quare subtle though to be fair

pinkyeye

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they answer the points you made.

Instead of stating the obvious, how about you actually try and contribute to the discussion instead by addressing any of the points I made in with regard to abortion in the US which is what this thread is actually about?

The point I made was that you were answering a question that you were not asked. That's a fact. Doesn't need to be addressed. IT'S A FACT.

One eyed Jack

pinkyeye wrote: »

The point I made was that you were answering a question that you were not asked. That's a fact. Doesn't need to be addressed. IT'S A FACT.

So what? You answered a question you weren’t asked in the other thread? As I pointed out to you already, it’s an open forum - anyone can ask questions, anyone else can offer an answer. It’s obviously a fact, what’s your point?

Still waiting on you to address any of the points I made regarding abortion in the US in reply to Billy’s question, which is actually the topic of this thread. I don’t usually entertain ad homs because if someone can’t make their point civilly without getting personal or point scoring or sly digs they aren’t worth discussing anything with. That’s why I wasn’t going to bother with this thread initially and I’m certainly not dignifying the other one with any contribution, contrary or otherwise.

The only reason I dignified Billy’s question with a response is because it was a question predicated upon a misguided belief that is often offered as some sort of a legitimate point about what they believe are the values of people who object to abortion in society and their regard for people who are disadvantaged and neglected. The reality isn’t that they don’t care about people, it’s that they just don’t care all that much for what they see as abortion being presented as a means to address social issues -

According to a survey presented to the Congressional Black Caucus earlier this year, 63 percent of black Americans feel taken for granted by the Democratic Party. That sentiment is strongest among black women ages 50-plus, who have watched decades of black communities and important issues go ignored.

...

Affordable healthcare tops the list of most important issues for black women at 48 percent — down four points from 2016. Criminal justice reform (43 percent), quality public education (37 percent), living wage jobs (37 percent), and a rise in hate crimes (33 percent) round out the top five concerns.

Progressives are focused elsewhere though. The Women’s March movement spends energy organizing for reproductive rights, LGBTQIA rights, civil and immigrant rights, worker’s rights, environmental justice, and disability rights. Yet, living wage jobs and equal pay are the only two issues that occupy more than 10 percent of black women’s top concerns.

Reproductive choices garnered a paltry 3 percent — down 14 points from last year. Paid leave came in dead last at just 2 percent — down from 11 percent in 2016.

Black Women Leaving the Democratic Party, Cracking the Base

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, haven't you forgotten someone?

I am not sure you are going to remind him of the someONE he forgot by showing a pointless picture of someTHING that is in no way a someONE.

But I see absolutely no nuance has been added to your arguments int he last 12 months since those arguments lost the referendum badly. Once again all you got is pictures you pray are as emotive to others as they are to you.

To the point not only to you need an animated GIF, but you need text on that GIF to add narrative to an automotive motion of the hand. Just in case people fail to read the same nonsense into it you do.

Dwarf.Shortage

rossie1977 wrote: »

Social conservatives view women as third class citizens basically. We see how women are treated in even more conservative countries like Saudi Arabia..that's basically the goal of us social conservatives, to control what women do.

A progressive society where women are free-thinking would be a deathnail for us conservatism.

It would be a good idea to always capitalise this, very easy to speed-read that sentence and think you're endorsing their mouth breeding nonsense.

JupiterKid

The thing is though that although Roe vs Wade in 1973 legalised abortion on a federal basis, many deeply backward, racist, sexist, homophobic states such as Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi etc NEVER willingly introduced legal and safe abortion and and had it imposed upon then by the Supreme Court.

This new law (which is unconstitutional at the Federal level) is just an attempt to get Roe vs Wade overturned. It is a disgusting ploy to sharply curtail womens' reproductive rights. It has nothing to do with cherishing life and everything to do with punishing and controlling women. It is no surprise that these same states mete out and practice the death penalty with gusto.

What next for these states? Recriminalising homosexuality? Denying non whites and women the vote?

As for that slip up by One Eyed Jack, I'm not all that surprised that he operates a second boards account...for all we know, he may have a few. As his alias crock rock we perhaps see the more true views on certain issues behind the mask of supposed well-informed and nuanced debate he wears as ONJ.

One eyed Jack

JupiterKid wrote: »

The thing is though that although Roe vs Wade in 1973 legalised abortion on a federal basis, many deeply backward, racist, sexist, homophobic states such as Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi etc NEVER willingly introduced legal and safe abortion and and had it imposed upon then by the Supreme Court.

This new law (which is unconstitutional at the Federal level) is just an attempt to get Roe vs Wade overturned. It is a disgusting ploy to sharply curtail womens' reproductive rights. It has nothing to do with cherishing life and everything to do with punishing and controlling women. It is no surprise that these same states mete out and practice the death penalty with gusto.

What next for these states? Recriminalising homosexuality? Denying non whites and women the vote?

As for that slip up by One Eyed Jack, I'm not all that surprised that he operates a second boards account...for all we know, he may have a few. As his alias crock rock we perhaps see the more true views on certain issues behind the mask of supposed well-informed and nuanced debate he wears as ONJ.

JK, that was Billy making a funny - pinkeye, one eye...

I guess that went over a few people’s heads, wrecks the joke to have to explain...





Anyways, what’s next for these states that understand the meaning of democracy as opposed to just Democratic by name? I suppose getting rid of the death merchants profiteering off people’s misery is a good start. Baby steps...

Timberrrrrrrr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

JK, that was Billy making a funny - pinkeye, one eye...

I guess that went over a few people’s heads, wrecks the joke to have to explain...





Anyways, what’s next for these states that understand the meaning of democracy as opposed to just Democratic by name? I suppose getting rid of the death merchants profiteering off people’s misery is a good start. Baby steps...

Who are these?

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Who are these?

Let’s not play silly buggers Timberrrrrrrr, you’re not dense. I think you know well I was referring to well funded, highly profitable organisations which offer abortion services in the US.

Timberrrrrrrr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Let’s not play silly buggers Timberrrrrrrr, you’re not dense. I think you know well I was referring to well funded, highly profitable organisations which offer abortion services in the US.

Name them please.

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Let’s not play silly buggers Timberrrrrrrr, you’re not dense. I think you know well I was referring to well funded, highly profitable organisations which offer abortion services in the US.

Along with sexual services and education. Describing them as merchants of death is propaganda as they provide many useful services. And your sort of rhetoric has made them targets of nutjobs with guns and bombers.

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Name them please.

Well there’s Planned Parenthood for one, with $2.7Bn in assets according to their 2017 - 2018 Annual Report

batgoat wrote: »

Along with sexual services and education. Describing them as merchants of death is propaganda as they provide many useful services. And your sort of rhetoric has made them targets of nutjobs with guns and bombers.

So what if they provide other services? I was referring to their abortion services. There are many providers of sexual services and education that don’t provide abortion services so your point about the other services they provide is neither here nor there really.

Nut jobs with guns and bombers would be nut jobs and bombers either way, by definition they hardly need encouraging - they’re nuts!

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well there’s Planned Parenthood for one, with $2.7Bn in assets according to their 2017 - 2018 Annual Report





So what if they provide other services? I was referring to their abortion services. There are many providers of sexual services and education that don’t provide abortion services so your point about the other services they provide is neither here nor there really.

Nut jobs with guns and bombers would be nut jobs and bombers either way, by definition they hardly need encouraging - they’re nuts!

Planned Parenthood is the largest contributor of those services in the US so it's entirely relevant. The guy who shot up the clinic a few years back directly referenced rhetoric such as yours to justify his actions... The guy who killed George Tiller was an anti abortion activist so you'd have to be really living in a bubble to claim this sort of rhetoric hasn't resulted in murders.

Gemma O D has several accounts on here.

Timberrrrrrrr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well there’s Planned Parenthood for one, with $2.7Bn in assets according to their 2017 - 2018 Annual Report






So what if they provide other services? I was referring to their abortion services. There are many providers of sexual services and education that don’t provide abortion services so your point about the other services they provide is neither here nor there really.

Nut jobs with guns and bombers would be nut jobs and bombers either way, by definition they hardly need encouraging - they’re nuts!

You said they are "highly profitable", planned parenthood is a non profit organisation.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Timberrrrrrrr

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Gemma O D has several accounts on here.

That wouldn't surprise me.

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said they are "highly profitable", planned parenthood is a non profit organisation.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

I stand by what I said, they are highly profitable as can be seen from their annual report. What they do with their profits is what classified them as a nonprofit organisation. From your own link -


In economic terms, it is an organization that uses its surplus of the revenues to further achieve its ultimate objective, rather than distributing its income to the organization's shareholders, leaders, or members. Nonprofits are tax exempt or charitable, meaning they do not pay income tax on the money that they receive for their organization.