Alabama Passes Bill Banning Abortion

[spathiphyllum]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

How awful.

[jim360]

I mean, if we're doing slippery slopes, then it's worth noting that Togo's attitude is from the same school as St Augustine, who once said that "women, acting in such a way that makes them incapable of bearing as many children as they are capable, are guilty of that many murders".

[Calicogirl]

I don't think there is a point to miss I think that is more or less the up and down of it Pixie :(

[naomi24]

It has to be the woman's decision.

[jim360]

It's good to see people from across the AB community coming together to agree on this.

[pixie374]

Much insanity in the world, is my conclusion.

[Ellipsis]

Your POV on abortion depends on where you believe life begins. If you believe it begins at or soon after conception, then most abortions are conscious decisions to end an innocent's life and therefore "murder". A lot of people do see it like that - and a lot don't.

The law we have in Northern Ireland is in fact more draconian than that proposed in Alabama.

[pixie374]

I don't think it does depend on "life" at all, ellipsis. Plants are alive... so are bacteria. It may depend on when there is consciousness or most logically, when the foetus is viable.
You can turn of life support machines on living adults- with a detectable heartbeat through machines. I am not sure why there is so much hypocrisy regarding this- particularly from males who have no idea at all what it is like. Easy to make the rules for other people though.

[cassa333]

This bill is a direct push back on the democrat controlled states that have legalised abortion up to and including the moment of birth.

In the case of Governor Northam from Virginia he also said that if a baby was born alive from a botched abortion the child would be made comfortable and the mother would be consulted as to the fate of the child. This has widely been seen as accepting the murder of a born alive human child.

You have pro abortion advocates stating with absolute surety that an unborn baby is not a human.... and therefore is not worthy of any human rights.

I am pro choice but when a baby is at a viable stage then for me that is not an appropriate time for abortion.

[naomi24]

//I am pro choice but when a baby is at a viable stage then for me that is not an appropriate time for abortion. //

I agree with that 100%.

[pixie374]

I would agree with that, Cassa... barring specific circumstances perhaps. As with any personal and private decision, it is case by case and a "one rule fits all" just doesn't.

[cassa333]

As far as I’m aware the woman would not be charged with anything. It is the Dr and those that perform abortions that would be criminalised.

In the US it appears that the abortion business is pushed by planned parenthood. Who’s main income generator is abortion and not women’s health as they say.

The founder of Planned Parenthood was a notorious eugenics advocate and was keen to breed out ethnic minority traits. As a simple bean counter, in NY more black children are aborted than are born alive.

When you take morality out of legislation you allow for state allowable murder and the de-designation of human life as human life.

A foetus is not a different animal. A foetus in a woman’s womb does not grow into a cat. It grows into a human. Foetus is a term used for the developmental stage of human life as is toddler, adult or pensioner.it is human regardless of gestational age.

[jim360]

There are extremely few late-term abortions, and they are invariably when it turns out to be a serious risk to women's health to continue the pregnancy. At that point (with extremely few exceptions), it's most likely to be a decision that is made only with extreme regret. I can't believe that there are many women who would carry a healthy baby knowledgeably for 39 weeks and then back out at the last. But if it were shown that giving birth would be dangerous then there may be no choice.

In general, though, I agree with cassa that late-term (post-viability) abortions shouldn't be carried out on a whim. The point is that they really aren't, and it's propaganda on behalf of the anti-abortion movement to imply otherwise.

[pixie374]

It is "human" genetically, but unable to survive without it's life support. Whether a woman can be forced to be used as one for somebody else, is the question really. And prosecuting doctors will have the same effect as banning women, really.

[pixie374]

I don't believe many abortions at any stage are carried out on a whim. Women are not machines, not matter how much some people wish them to be.

[jim360]

I don't either. I really shouldn't have even implied that any woman might.

[pixie374]

I thought you were referring to doctors, actually x

[jim360]

Either is bad enough.

Eugenics was, sadly and shamefully, a popular philosophy in the early 20th Century. Not difficult to find prominent figures in support of it. Thankfully we've (mostly) moved on. I don't see how Margaret Sanger's advocation of eugenics undermines the work of the chief providers of reproductive healthcare in the US.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ah,autonomy. "Woman's right to choose". Activist judges. Creative accountancy. Etc.

A few rambling musings to myself. (Some others may[i, although I doubt it will be very many, want to consider the same questions and observations).

Does a woman have the right to choose an abortion eight weeks, or eight months into her pregnancy? Or eighty minutes before she gives birth?

Does her right to choose end [i]after] she has given birth? Or not? If the answer is yes, then that would be based presumably on the physical separation of mother and child, not on any concept of "dependency", wouldn't it, seeing how a new-born couldn't live an independent life?

Now take the religious angle. If you believe that the fertilised egg is endowed with a soul at the moment of conception as RCs do, or a hundred days later as I think Islam teaches, then, even if you think this soul stuff is superstitious nonsense, one must surely allow that opposition to abortion by people with those beliefs is based on the same moral principle which condemns murder. That does follow, doesn't it, VE?

Now forget religion and think scientifically and humanely: is there a point in its development when the foetus becomes a human being and it which it might suffer pain? I've had an Alfie experience (remember Michael Caine and lovely Vivien Merchant RIP in the film?) when my sister-in-law had a back-street abortion and spent a weekend with us. What was aborted was not a "thing", I can assure you. Being a typical bloke I wimped out and left the girls to deal with it.

Now, exceptional circumstances of the pregnancy. Most often cited are rape and incest. But, distressing as they are for the victim, they shouldn't override the moral case if there is one. Principle of "hard cases make for bad law".

[pixie374]

Morals work in adults too. If you read the thread, ve, the main difference is viability. Nobody can be forced to be a life support machine for another person.
If you refused to donate your kidneys to strangers who needed them, would that make you a murderer?
For the benefit of anyone reading who may be vulnerable... the word "murder" is entirely misplaced. It means an "unlawful" killing and not removal of a foetus.

[jim360]

I think the first part of your musing is easy to answer: abortion past viability should only be carried out if not doing so is likely to see either (or both) of the mother and child's lives are under threat (already in the foetus's case), and the "right to an abortion" is not something that is some arbitrary and unaccountable decision. Those who've been in the position of making the decision will know how mentally painful it is to do it anyway. Really what you mean, I think, is the right to healthcare: and then medical judgement should also play a part. A woman would, I assume, no more be able to insist on having an abortion against medical advice than they would be able to obtain prescription drugs without a prescription.

I am not sure how to respond to the religious one, except to point out that we are gradually moving, I hope, to an understanding that what *your* religion says about *your* life is none of my concern and shouldn't be legally imposed on me. (Generic you applies to this paragraph.)