I wrote about abortion from a Christian perspective in another thread a while back, if you're interested. I'll give the same qualifier here that I did there: those are not my personal beliefs but...
I wrote about abortion from a Christian perspective in another thread a while back, if you're interested. I'll give the same qualifier here that I did there: those are not my personal beliefs but instead are a rough summary of the beliefs of some people that I know. Hopefully it can give you some insight into how they approach the issue and why a law this restrictive would still be supported by so many.
And what's wrong with that, exactly? Pantheocide when? Jokes aside, this person is monstrous, and his existence is, to me, a compelling argument for allowing abortion up to the 300th trimester.
Exemplary
“I believe that if we terminate the life of an unborn child, we are putting ourselves in God’s place,” Chambliss said.
In May of 2019, he supported a bill banning all abortions except in the case of endangerment to the mother’s health. Abortions in the cases of rape and incest would be banned, and subject abortion performers to 10 to 99 years in prison.[3][4] When asked about the issue, Chambliss said: "When God creates the miracle of life inside a woman’s womb, it is not our place as human beings to extinguish that life." [5] He has also claimed that "he's not smart enough to be pregnant", and that "there's some period of time before you can know a woman is pregnant."[6] After the law passed the Alabama Senate, Chambliss argued that a woman who was pregnant due to rape or incest still could legally get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant".[4]
Jokes aside, this person is monstrous, and his existence is, to me, a compelling argument for allowing abortion up to the 300th trimester.
I've been trying to understand this since I read it last night. How the fuck do you get an abortion if you don't know you're pregnant? I think he must be talking about Plan B, the morning after...
Chambliss argued that a woman who was pregnant due to rape or incest still could legally get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant"
I've been trying to understand this since I read it last night. How the fuck do you get an abortion if you don't know you're pregnant?
I think he must be talking about Plan B, the morning after pill. Religious conservatives think that Plan B counts as an abortion (it doesn't), and you take it before you know you're pregnant. (In reality, you take it before you become pregnant, in order to stop ovulation if it hasn't already happened.)
None of these assholes know anything about this stuff. And yet they think it's their god-given right, nay their god-given duty, to write and pass bills about it. As someone with a uterus, I can't describe how horrifying this latest batch of bills has been.
Welp, everything I have to say on that falls under the "bannable offenses" banner for Tildes, so I'm just gonna sit this discussion out. Thank you for clarifying, though!
Welp, everything I have to say on that falls under the "bannable offenses" banner for Tildes, so I'm just gonna sit this discussion out. Thank you for clarifying, though!
Don't worry, I don't think there's anything worthwhile to actually say. We're all thinking it, most republicans included. There's no debate to be had, it's just inhumane and disgusting.
Don't worry, I don't think there's anything worthwhile to actually say. We're all thinking it, most republicans included. There's no debate to be had, it's just inhumane and disgusting.
This logic is just devoid of all common sense. What human being capable of feeling empathy thinks it is ok to force someone who was raped, a horribly painful experience, to go through child birth,...
This logic is just devoid of all common sense. What human being capable of feeling empathy thinks it is ok to force someone who was raped, a horribly painful experience, to go through child birth, another horribly painful experience?
This is violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, right? This is super clear that they're trying to base this law on religion. Edit: I'm actually asking. Is it?
This is violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, right? This is super clear that they're trying to base this law on religion.
It depends heavily on how narrow or broad the eventual Supreme Court ruling will be. The short version is that it's quite unlikely we'll get a broad ruling striking down not just abortion rights...
Exemplary
It depends heavily on how narrow or broad the eventual Supreme Court ruling will be. The short version is that it's quite unlikely we'll get a broad ruling striking down not just abortion rights but also other things that fall under the general "right to privacy".
"Overturning Roe v. Wade" is just a sort of shorthand for the worst-case scenario many reproductive rights activists fear. It's extremely unlikely that abortion would be criminalized at the federal level - rather, it would become legal for state-by-state bans or restrictions on abortion.
Also important to note is that Roe v. Wade is the name that everyone knows, but in many ways the more relevant case is 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. This created an undue burden standard which does allow states to regulate abortion as long as it does not pose an "undue burden" on the mother. There was a recent case on this same subject in 2016, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt. That case revolved around the undue burden standard and how it applied to regulations that states wanted to apply to abortion clinics.
So it's entirely possible to have a fairly narrow ruling which doesn't officially strike down Roe, but has much the same effect by allowing a much larger set of restrictions on abortion that aren't deemed to create an "undue burden". The current "state of the art", if you will, among state legislatures that wish to restrict abortion is to try to shut down abortion clinics through what are called TRAP laws. If abortion is technically legal in a state, but due to regulations there are no clinics in that state performing abortions, then it's effectively the same thing.
All of the above can be done without upending the larger right to privacy recognized in the Constitution (famously described as being part of the "penumbra" recognized by other rights, rather than explicitly spelled out). In general, and especially under the Roberts Court, justices tend to go for narrower rulings over broad ones.
Exactly this. The danger here is not that the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, it's that the court finds that Alabama's law is in-line with Roe v. Wade (because, they'd say, this isn't a...
Exactly this. The danger here is not that the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, it's that the court finds that Alabama's law is in-line with Roe v. Wade (because, they'd say, this isn't a complete ban on abortions. When a woman's life is in danger, they're willing to allow abortions) and so it won't strike Alabama's law down.
Beyond that, what does this mean in terms of separation of church and state? Obviously some states have had a long battle with that idea, but what if the supreme court adopts Alabama's rhetoric?
Beyond that, what does this mean in terms of separation of church and state? Obviously some states have had a long battle with that idea, but what if the supreme court adopts Alabama's rhetoric?
What's the moral and/or ethical justification proponents of this were/are using, does anyone know?
I wrote about abortion from a Christian perspective in another thread a while back, if you're interested. I'll give the same qualifier here that I did there: those are not my personal beliefs but instead are a rough summary of the beliefs of some people that I know. Hopefully it can give you some insight into how they approach the issue and why a law this restrictive would still be supported by so many.
And what's wrong with that, exactly?
Pantheocide when?
Jokes aside, this person is monstrous, and his existence is, to me, a compelling argument for allowing abortion up to the 300th trimester.
I've been trying to understand this since I read it last night. How the fuck do you get an abortion if you don't know you're pregnant?
I think he must be talking about Plan B, the morning after pill. Religious conservatives think that Plan B counts as an abortion (it doesn't), and you take it before you know you're pregnant. (In reality, you take it before you become pregnant, in order to stop ovulation if it hasn't already happened.)
None of these assholes know anything about this stuff. And yet they think it's their god-given right, nay their god-given duty, to write and pass bills about it. As someone with a uterus, I can't describe how horrifying this latest batch of bills has been.
You don't. It's a catch-22, and very much what they want.
Welp, everything I have to say on that falls under the "bannable offenses" banner for Tildes, so I'm just gonna sit this discussion out. Thank you for clarifying, though!
Don't worry, I don't think there's anything worthwhile to actually say. We're all thinking it, most republicans included. There's no debate to be had, it's just inhumane and disgusting.
This logic is just devoid of all common sense. What human being capable of feeling empathy thinks it is ok to force someone who was raped, a horribly painful experience, to go through child birth, another horribly painful experience?
Is this really what Jesus would do?
This is violating the establishment clause of the first amendment, right? This is super clear that they're trying to base this law on religion.
Edit: I'm actually asking. Is it?
Won't that ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court?
With the statements made by the lawmakers, I don't see how it couldn't be.
It depends heavily on how narrow or broad the eventual Supreme Court ruling will be. The short version is that it's quite unlikely we'll get a broad ruling striking down not just abortion rights but also other things that fall under the general "right to privacy".
"Overturning Roe v. Wade" is just a sort of shorthand for the worst-case scenario many reproductive rights activists fear. It's extremely unlikely that abortion would be criminalized at the federal level - rather, it would become legal for state-by-state bans or restrictions on abortion.
Also important to note is that Roe v. Wade is the name that everyone knows, but in many ways the more relevant case is 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. This created an undue burden standard which does allow states to regulate abortion as long as it does not pose an "undue burden" on the mother. There was a recent case on this same subject in 2016, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt. That case revolved around the undue burden standard and how it applied to regulations that states wanted to apply to abortion clinics.
So it's entirely possible to have a fairly narrow ruling which doesn't officially strike down Roe, but has much the same effect by allowing a much larger set of restrictions on abortion that aren't deemed to create an "undue burden". The current "state of the art", if you will, among state legislatures that wish to restrict abortion is to try to shut down abortion clinics through what are called TRAP laws. If abortion is technically legal in a state, but due to regulations there are no clinics in that state performing abortions, then it's effectively the same thing.
All of the above can be done without upending the larger right to privacy recognized in the Constitution (famously described as being part of the "penumbra" recognized by other rights, rather than explicitly spelled out). In general, and especially under the Roberts Court, justices tend to go for narrower rulings over broad ones.
Exactly this. The danger here is not that the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, it's that the court finds that Alabama's law is in-line with Roe v. Wade (because, they'd say, this isn't a complete ban on abortions. When a woman's life is in danger, they're willing to allow abortions) and so it won't strike Alabama's law down.
Beyond that, what does this mean in terms of separation of church and state? Obviously some states have had a long battle with that idea, but what if the supreme court adopts Alabama's rhetoric?
Pat Robertson has now come out and called this bill too extreme.
Wow.