Anti-Alabama anti-abortion law

posted 1 month ago in The Lounge
Post # 46
Member
892 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: November 2014

I am a Christian and believe life starts at conception and therefore would never have an abortion.  Now before you all stone me, I do NOT believe in limiting access to and/or criminalizing abortion.  Why?  Because THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!!! The Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY allows for freedom of religion.  I can’t force my religious beliefs on anyone else.  

This lack of compassion and desire to control women’s bodies by so-called “Christians” is disgusting to me.  Last I checked, Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes and preached about loving your neighbor and giving to the poor.  Our foster care system is currently FAILING these children with no end in sight.  I agree with those who say the abortion ban is about controling women, NOT about being “pro life.”  If they were truly pro-life, they would be holding men JUST as accountable as women and they wouldn’t be cutting funding to programs that support women and children (education cuts, anyone?).  

What I would like to see: 

  • Comprehensive sex education for all children
  • Free access to birth control and counseling on selecting the correct kind for you and your lifestyle (I read an article a while ago about how Nexplanon and IUDs have the potential to greatly reduce teen pregnancy because they don’t require remembering to take a pill on a schedule which is more difficult for the developing brain.  Hell, I’m 29 and struggle to remember to take pills so I have a Nexplanon) 
  • More funding for programs that support women and children so that women who CHOOSE to continue with an unplanned pregnancy.  
  • An overhaul to the DFS/CPS/whatever-its-called-in-your-state system because it is failing.  I’m a teacher and the things I have seen… I just can’t.  
  • Harsher penalties for rape and sexual assault (the pastor who repeatedly raped his 14 year old?  He should have his balls smashed with a hammer, not be given a light sentence for being a “good Christian man.”  Barf.) 

If conservatives supported programs for women and children to help beyond birth I could at least see where they were coming from (although I would still disagree) but they don’t.  Let’s not pretend this about ANYTHING other than trying to control women, control women’s sexuality, and punish WOMEN for daring to have sex if they don’t want a baby RIGHT NOW.  

I do not believe in punishing children for adult issues and that is what happens when we force women to bear children they are not prepared for.  That is what happens when we pull funding for programs like WIC and SNAP and Section 8.  That is what happens when we cut funding to schools.  Regardless of my own personal beliefs about abortion, I will ALWAYS support a woman’s rght to choose.  

 

Post # 47
Member
1566 posts
Bumble bee

I’m not against or pro any religion but find it ironic that Christians harp on about the terrible treatment and restriction on rights of women in Islamic faith countries yet it seems like they are heading the same direction. It’s like Handmaids tale coming to life. 

Post # 48
Member
27 posts
Newbee

 

loudsilence99 :  Beautifully said – hear, hear! I wish I could upvote you a hundred times!

Post # 49
Member
923 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: May 2018

fran01 :  i was thinking the same thing – thats scary – off to the colonies for me as my tubes are tied !!

Post # 50
Member
801 posts
Busy bee

Elections have consequences.  Everyone who didn’t vote because they disliked Hillary & Trump or voted for Trump because “why not” or “he’s a businessman” or “he tells it like it is” or voted for some stupid ass 3rd party candidate as a protest vote…….YOU ARE WHY THIS IS HAPPENING.

 

Conservatives made a deal with the devil (Trump) because he promised to stack the court and overturn Roe.  This is why all these states are feeling emboldened. Because multiple of these bills will end up at the feet of the Supreme Court.  Because Judge Gorsuch and Judge Kavanaugh have been placed there to overturn Roe. 

 

This is why no Republican will stand up to Trump about any fucking thing.  Because we all know Trump could give two shits about abortion (and has probably paid for dozens of them between himself and his offspring) but he wants all the power he’s been given. So conservatives get to overturn Roe and Trump gets completely freedom to be a democracy wrecking asshole.

Post # 51
Member
6044 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: February 1997

dgirl715 :  Amen.

Elections have consequences. It isn’t a game or a joke or about who you would rather have a beer with. How you feel personally about someone should not matter if their politics and policies are what you want. Clinton lost because people didn’t like her and didn’t trust her. Well look at what we have and tell me how likeable Trump is. And then tell me about how you trust him. Would you trust him with your daughter? 

I hope every single person who is protesting these barbaric laws voted. And I hope each and every one remembers this every time elections roll around. VOTE – for president, for governors, for Senators, for congressmen, for mayor, for those on state courts, for school board. Hell, vote for dog catcher. EVERY election matters.

Post # 52
Member
1899 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: May 2016

my frustration with trump supporters (and im really not lumping them all together) but a lot of them cant give a educated reason why they like him. Its always the same “well hes brutal honest, he dont care about politicians, hes not a politician, etc. etc. “

its never a “well i like him because of this policy or change he has made to america…” outside of the typical illegal immigrant rant most give off. 

i just find politics very frustrating, its a 24/7 circus. People may have hated obama, but he was easy to listen to on tv, and had at least a little common sense. 

i feel like trump and his team, are trying to be the least presidental they can possibly be intentionally. 

the only good thing i will give him, is his meeting with north korea, but even that im skeptical of. 

Post # 53
Member
1328 posts
Bumble bee

dgirl715 :  πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

Post # 54
Hostess
3737 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: November 2016

loudsilence99 :  THIS.  This is how my Christian friends feel and I applaud them for it.  My parents are loudly anti choice and I wish they would view it this way.  

dgirl715 :  Agree wholeheartedly.  I have been screaming this loudly at anyone who will listen.  My very Christian, libertarian family voted Dem in 2018 because they could not fathom allowing the unchecked power of Trump and his enabling GOP Congressmen to continue.  They threw their votes away on third party candidates in 2016, so maybe there is hope. 

Post # 55
Member
1032 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2017

glitterati :  THANK YOU for this talking point. I’m pretty sure my in-laws think that the risks in pregnancy are being exaggerated, but this is useful context as they are a military family. I’m gathering my statistics ahead of a July get-together. In the meantime, I have blocked a couple of them on Facebook as they keep posting anti-choice memes. For example: a picture showing a full-term fetus and a baby side by side, with the caption: “there is only one significant difference between babies inside the women and babies outside. Inside the womb you can’t hear them scream.” It took all my willpower not to point out that lungs don’t develop until 26 weeks, at which point, ain’t nobody having an abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk or the fetus has severe deformations. 

Post # 56
Member
2336 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: January 2012

loudsilence99 : Genuine question to you.  Perhaps its because abortion is illegal in my country AND we have a plethora of varying religious {and non-religious]  representations, but I fail to see what your religion has to do with abortion. If you believe life starts at conception wouldn’t that make it a human rights issue, which puts a moral responsiblity on you to advocate for this ‘life’.

Or do you believe that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy supercede this life? If so, I can see where you are coming from, if not I’m genuinely confused. Its like me saying I believe murder is wrong, but I understand not everyone feels like that so I won’t force them to view things my way? You know what I mean? 

I’m not an American, so I agree with all the things you say in theory, but I fail to see why it has to be one way or the other. Can’t you be ‘pro-life’ while advocating for a greater standard of policies that ensure children have a right to live AND women and children have options for decent opportunities in life post-birth. I see the answer as leaning towards greater advocacy and holding politicians to higher standards as it relates to these human rights issues.

Post # 57
Member
892 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: November 2014

picturemeurs :  I won’t claim to have all the answers or a perfectly reasoned opinion but here goes… 

I consider myself to be pro life.  I equate abortion to killing a baby.  I’m against the death penalty, in favor of comprehensive sex education, birth control programs, and assistance for women and children.  In an ideal world (well, at least in MY ideal world), people would wait to have sex until they are married and everyone would find their *perfect* mate and it would be all sunshine and rainbows and well-planned babies.  There are, unfortunately, several realities in this imperfect world. My beliefs in regards to human life are bound in my faith.  Not everyone shares this faith and the right to religious freedom is specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  Other religions (and those who are not religious at all) answer the question of when life begins differently.  Some say when the heart starts beating, others when the baby can surivive outside of the womb on its own, and others say at birth, or even later (though the panic around “post birth abortion” by the religious right is greatly overstated).  This question of “when does life begin?” brings up the question “when does taking away said life constitute murder?”  Unfortunately, the answers vary from religion to religion and this variance is specifically protected under the Constitution.  Under the law, a woman’s right to bodily autonomy supercedes the life of the child she carries.  In my opinion, changing this would require a hard and fast definition of when life begins, most likely in the form of a Constitutional amendment.  

My heart hurts at all the potential lives lost.  I see in my minds eye tiny humans full of promise.  My heart also hurts, however, for victims of rape and sexual assault.  My heart hurts for babies born to addicted mothers.  My heart hurts for the children born to parents who didn’t want them and weren’t ready for them.  My heart hurts for mothers whose child has been diagnosed with a condition that is “incompatible with life” and have to choose between painful hours, days, weeks of waiting for the final heartbeat to pass or ending that life.  

I also want to recognize that me being able to say “I would never have an abortion” isn’t just a product of my faith; it’s a product of my privilege.  I have a good job with health benefits that cover prenatal care.  I have a house.  I have enough money to care for a child.  I have a loving and supportive spouse.  Were I to get pregnant tomorrow, I could take care of that child with no hardship other than inconvient timing.  The likelihood of that happening is slim because that same privilege ensures that I have a reliable form of birth control to ensure that I don’t get pregnant unless I want to.  Many of these privileges are things that women who are poor or abused or uneducated do not have.  I can’t imagine what it would be like to be a teenager, poor as dirt, forced to bear the baby of my abuser.  Would I still say “I would never have an abortion”, faith or no faith?  

There are also those who say that abortion is not specifically prohibited in the Bible.  Others cite a passage in Numbers that sort of describes aborting a baby born of infidelity.  I do not understand enough of the context for this passage to sway my opinion either way.  

My goal is to end (or at least reduce) abortion is to work backwards.  Start by teaching children about contraception from a young age and make it readily available.  Hold men accountable for any children they bear (it takes two to tango).  Care for the children who are already born.  Advocate for children in foster care or awaiting adoption.  Help people learn to be good parents.  Advocate for the environment and for a safer world.  Push for educational reform.  Enforce harsher sentences for those guilty of rape and sexual assault, and yes, they should have to pay child support!  Teach men to respect women and teach women to stand up for themselves when necessary.  WHen we do this, abortion will decrease naturally and hopefully, in time, can be eliminated entirely.  With the right to religious freedom, however, I’m not sure it will ever really go away.

Post # 58
Member
1328 posts
Bumble bee

loudsilence99 :  I am curious what denomination you identify as?  If you identify with one at all. Personal question, I understand if you’d rather not answer, I’m just curious.  Your responses are a joy to read.  I’m really glad you took the time to reply so thoughtfully.  

Post # 59
Member
2901 posts
Sugar bee

 

loudsilence99 :  Whenever the issue of abortion comes up I want to have a full discussion so that we know what we are all talking about.

 So what is the debate on abortion really about? 

Often the debate is about life and when life begins. Well, strictly speaking, it begins when the egg is fertilised and begins to divide. Even so, this is a matter of debate. Scientists use the concept of viability. They talk about the pre-embryo, the fertilised egg before it attaches to the uterus wall. Once it is attaches to the uterus (6-12 days after fertilisation) the ball of cells is termed an embryo and becomes viable – there is now the possibility of survival to birth. However, if we use the first definition – that life begins at fertilisation – then we wouldn’t have the pill and IUDs, which often work not by stopping ovulation but stopping implantation.

Deeply religious people have an extra issue. There is a Biblical precedent against the withdrawal method and (arguably) condoms – the Genesis story of Onan spilling his ‘seed’ on the ground. So this leaves two contraceptive possibilities: firstly, female contraception involving implants that put women through a temporary menopause so that ova are not released; and secondly, male contraception designed to prevent the sperm formation, sperm motility or ejaculation. The former can create problems with women’s bone health and so the only moral solution is to legislate so that all post-pubescent men in Alabama must take male contraceptives until they are trying for children (with agreement of their female partners). This goes for male senators too.

In order to avoid men having to take some serious responsibility for contraception Alabama senators have come up with the concept of an embryo being viable when a heart beat is detected at 6 weeks. There is no scientific evidence that this is when life or viability begins. It’s just a fudge because banning contraception would be seen as politically unacceptable.

Hang on a minute, someone might say. That’s not what it is about. It’s about not having sex outside marriage. People should be self-controlled and abstain.Who says? Isn’t that the point of view of the American Baptist Church? Okay, they do have the right to religious freedom but do they have the right to impose their religious views on other Christian denominations, other religions and other people of no religion? Well clearly not. If they impose their views they take away the religious and non-religious freedoms of others. Such an action would be unconstitutional.

Hang on a minute, someone might say. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about preserving life. Well, if it is about preserving life then let’s be consistent. Life may begin at the first dividing cell but it rarely ends at when a baby is born. It usually continues for many years. So if life is sacrosanct then we have to save lives whatever a person’s age. That means we can’t have babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, young people, middle-aged people or old people anywhere dying before their time. We can’t let anyone anywhere in the world starve. We can kiss goodbye to the arms trade. We can’t use the excuse of borders or protectionism or profit or being American or British or protecting our own families at the expense of other families. We can’t put the environment at risk because if we do then people might die elsewhere due to crop failure, storms, floods, forest fires or sea-level rise. This is a whole lot of responsibility.

Hang on a minute, someone might say. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about sweetness. Unborn and new-born babies are so sweet that we can’t let them die. But aren’t toddlers, young children, older children, teenagers and adults beautiful too? And what about babies of different colours and creeds? What about disability? Do human beings have to be attractive in order to be saved? And who decides which babies are the most attractive – the legislators or the mothers? (Of course, if we don’t take care of people until at least adolescence then there won’t be any more babies, sweet or otherwise.)

Hang on a minute, someone might say. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about innocence. Unborn babies haven’t had the chance to sin yet so we protect them. Once they are born they are as sinful as the rest of us so its okay if they die. (Catholicism has created the concept of original sin – even the dividing cell is sinful – and then all the usual sort of sin after the child is born. It’s a shame the Catholic Church hasn’t spent the same amount of effort preventing child abuse as it has in disapproving of abortion.) This does rather explain why there isn’t the same outcry when children die in school shootings as there is over abortion. Surely the same people should be equally vociferous about both.

Hang on a minute, someone might say. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about men controlling women. Women should be barefoot, tied to the sink or the bed or the nursery. They are mere vessels for men’s babies. Well, most of us wouldn’t agree with this. What is underlying it all is a question of rights. It depends whose rights are more important, those of a man, those of a woman (or in some cases a young person who may have gone through puberty but may still be a child) or those of an unborn child. Certainly, if all men fathering a child in Alabama had a 20lb weight sewn to the front of their abdomen, had emetics to make them sick in the first 12 weeks, had to pay for new clothes to accommodate the weight, nine months later had the weight surgically removed, and then had to pay child support, there might be a more equal discussion.

Hang on a minute, someone might say. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about preventing death. Well if this is what it is about then there is a problem. Childbirth is a riskier than usual time for women – the more babies, the greater the risks. Complications and death can happen. Also, pregnant women who do not want or cannot cope financially or emotionally with a child or are made to feel desperately ashamed of their pregnancy may choose illegal backstreet abortions or try to abort the fetus themselves. In these cases both the woman and her unborn child will die and particularly women who are vulnerable, poor, ill, young and/or despised. What happens if the mother’s life is at risk due to carrying a child that is the result of rape or incest? Is it morally right to allow a conscious being (the mother) to die in order to preserve the life of an unconsious being (the embryo)?  

Hang on a minute, someone might say. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about pointing out other people’s characteristics as a distraction from our own. If we make abortion or homosexuality or being black, or not believing in a particular religion or not being in our financial clique or not sharing our political views or not being from a Western country a sin then if we are male, straight, white, Christian, rich, Republican and American we can pretend that we are not actually worse than everyone else. We can even make sure that we are seen as so virtuous that the fact that we’re not prepared to give away any of our billions (to pregnant women, ill babies and starving children) will be entirely overlooked – as will that boast about grabbing women by the pussy. Then everyone will vote for us as US president next time.

Leave a comment


Find Amazing Vendors