Culture Alabama governor signs nation's most restrictive anti-abortion bill into law - "Unenforceable" bill designed to directly challenge Roe V. Wade

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
kiwifarms.net
Easy. The Iron Lung didn't create the man, and is also an inatimate object. The iron lung is in no danger of death from the human within it. In the case of conception the woman has literally created another being within her body which can kill her. It should be the woman's choice what to do with it. The only role the government should have is ensuring that its done safely.
The most hard-line pro-lifers would argue that the woman didn't create the fetus. I'll settle for pointing out that it took two to tango there, unless you've figured out a way to reproduce asexually. If you're now arguing that the woman's right to terminate stems from a responsibility to preserve one's self instead of some kind of ownership over the fetus, I'll accept that as better ground to stand on and add the caveat that the woman would then need to establish that a pregnancy was going to put her life in danger (ectopic pregnancy as one example) before she would, by your standard, have the right to terminate.

Oh yeah, they can definitely choose to go on the lam and not pay child-support. In the case of him deciding whether she should abort it or not he doesn't have to give birth to it, so his say in the decision should be effectively null. And what of his responsibility in causing the pregnancy? Why didn't he wear a condom, or pull out? Why didn't he have a vasectomy?
He can't legally do so. When he goes deadbeat he is in violation of the law and risks various legal and financial repercussions for doing so. As a side note, child support collection agents don't give a FUCK if you can afford that check. They'll take whatever they can and leave you with pocket change. Can't eat or pay your own bills? Too bad, fucker. As for the condom issue, she could have very well told her partner "Wear a rubber or you get none." Takes two to tango. Pulling out is exceptional and has a miserable success rate, if you're relying on withdrawal you're fucking dumb. Vasectomies are usually irreversible and if you don't have banked sperm you just fucked yourself out of having your own kids. I find it funny how you talk about his responsibility for the pregnancy and his complete lack of a right to opine on whether said pregnancy goes to term or not in the same sentence. Rights and responsibilities are inexorably linked.

And even then the man carries very little risk from a woman's pregnancy. She can die from childbirth. He might have to sign a check if things don't go his way in court. The positions aren't equal whatsoever. This is why I err on the side of the woman. Even as a genetic contributor his life is altered considerably less so by the prospect of pregnancy. The epidemic of single mothers in this country is proof-positive of that.
Might have to sign a check? Unless he's capable of proving that the kids aren't even his (and he has to do it within a certain amount of time after being named as the father) that's a 100 percent guarantee that he'll have his arm twisted. I find the notion of single motherhood being something men caused to be hilarious given my own history, but when you look at things like the majority of divorces (no-fault divorces I might add) being initiated by women, women are considered to be default caretakers by courts, single motherhood being propped up as a sign of strong women who don't need no man by Murphy Brown and beyond... It takes two to tango. You're not some kind of slave to the domineering patriarchy. Women make their own choices every day about "I want to have unprotected sex with this guy" or "I want kids and I don't care if he wants them or not" and "I can just get child support from your ass anyway, lol".
 

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
Why do I get the feeling this and that Georgia bill are a direct response to the Far Left "after birth" abortion horseshit going on in places like New York?
I think the whole abortion debate is stupid to begin with. The left only backs abortion to appease nigger bitches, and funnel shekels back into their party. People can spin it however they want, but you're still killing a kid when you preform an abortion.
1523007452038.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tetraphobia

This is a hurt-box I can't leave
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It should be automatically aborted if it's a deformed abomination with no viable quality of life. I don't care if you have to go in there with hedge trimmers. Can't stop abortions, they're gonna happen and are necessary to prevent economic and emotional burdens.
I hate the hypocritical pro-lifers that give birth to a hideous baby that's in constant agony and pain, call it a miracle, then hook it up to medical supplies to keep it's suffering going. Being against abortion is one thing, but for fucks sake, give birth to your miracle and let it die naturally within hours/days then.
 

Syaoran Li

Totally Radical Dude
kiwifarms.net
Honestly, I am pro-choice and I think Alabama's newest law is idiotic as fuck.

The Supreme Court will likely shoot this down faster than an unborn heartbeat but I still stand by my belief that even in a Bible Belt shithole state like Alabama, a law this ridiculous would not have been passed had it not been for the equally ridiculous abortion bills in New York, DC, and Vermont.

The current SJW movement is mainly the result of a Millennial backlash against the old Religious Right and to this day, many SJW's and assorted leftists still think that the Religious Right is relevant on the national level like it was during their Bush-era childhoods.

The Religious Right as a force of cultural or sociopolitical power and relevance pretty much died with with the downfall of the Tea Party and the rise of Donald Trump.

Aside from the largely powerless Mike Pence and a few Boomer relics in the state governments of the Bible Belt, the "evil Christian oppressors" aren't even a thing in American politics and nobody besides SJW's and fedora-wearing euphoric atheists give a shit about the Religious Right

Honestly, the Supreme Court didn't really give a shit about Roe v. Wade and wisely passed the buck onto state governments to decide for themselves.

But because so many in the Left honestly seem to believe Trump is going to turn America into a real-life version of The Handmaid's Tale, you had the Vermont and New York abortion bills that crossed the lines from terminating a fetus and into the far more unsettling field of partial-birth abortion and possibly post-term abortions depending on interpretation of the law's wording

It can be argued whether or not a fetus counts as a human life, but a baby who is already born is a human life by any standard of the concept.

TL;DR-The SJW's were so paranoid that the GOP was going to possibly undo Roe v. Wade that it may end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy for them. I still think Roe v. Wade will be upheld but it will likely be reviewed either way.
 
Last edited:

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
kiwifarms.net
And abortion exists alongside those options. This is like outlawing bikes because its easier to walk, or outlawing Reeboks because Sketchers exist. Its a non-starter of an argument. You don't take away one options just because others exist. You have strong arguments against abortions but this isn't one of them my friend.
The analogy that bikes should be outlawed because it's easier to walk is not analogous. The analogy that bikes should be outlawed because injuries and deaths occur more often with bikes than with walking would be closer. It's not a matter of ease, it's a matter of safety/preservation of life. You misunderstand the grounds on which the pro-life argument is made, either willingly to trivialize or mistakenly. The premise is that one option causes a definite harm which is circumvented with other options.

All of these options can fail. Refer here for a citation:

In all cases, none of these options outside of abstinence have a 100 percent success rate. I mostly agree with you on this point, there are other options that can be taken. But because I'm a fan of freedom of choice I'm against an option being taken away for arbitrary reasons, especially moral ones.
(Funnily enough the option with the lowest failure rate outside of "not getting raped" is male sterilization)
You view it as arbitrary, they do not. They view it as deadly serious as murder. There is a certain degree of empathy required to be able to understand where your opponent is coming from and to effectively argue against it, either for their benefit or for the audience's. That being said, the failure rates on most contraceptive options are incredibly low when used properly, and it's fairly simple to combine some for that extra layer of safety. Things would improve even more if we could get male contraceptives greenlit but there are people on both sides of that gender divide who don't want that for various reasons, most of them stupid, and some would rather crack jokes about sterilizing men and toss out vague implications of sex = rape, for humor's sake I presume.

Actually that's a bit of a grey area in terms of public opinion. For conservatives of course its black and white but not everyone is conservative. Here's a good breakdown of post-Roe V. Wade feelings on abortion for context:

Really the only time I ever see abortion brought up in a negative light is from conservatives. This bill was manufactured by conservatives and pushed through in a deep south conservative state. The person who signed the damn thing even admits its unenforceable. So this is not as clean cut as you think, which is why I generally speak of my own feelings.
I've talked to nominally liberal people who really didn't like abortion but were unwilling to be the ones in their sociopolitical circle to stick their necks out about it. I've talked to nominal conservatives who literally did not give a shit either way. Political leanings are not hiveminds. There's a lot more granularity there than "liberal" and "conservative". And yes, this is another political stunt which won't even HELP the pro-life crowd and I'm pretty sure most of them know that.

Opinions on political systems are quite different from matters of personal freedom in regards to something as basic as conception. I don't dismiss debate lightly, only in the case of things that form the core of my beliefs. This includes civil rights, discrimination, democracy and of course abortion.
Due to the fact that we live in a system where politicians can author laws that affect personal freedoms they have, for better or worse, become joined at the hip. The nature of democratic government in all its forms, even ours, has made personal freedoms of various sorts things that ARE up for debate. Whether one likes it or not is immaterial at this point, you have to at least start whatever work it is you want inside the system you live in. Not showing up to the debate hall is basically ceding the point to your opponent in a democracy. Show up, make your point and cast your vote or don't complain about the result.

Some things we no longer debate. The Sun revolving around the earth, whether blacks are fully human, whether Game of Thrones has good writers. In these instances the evidence has been so strong that its moved it past the area of public discourse. I think, thanks to the safety of modern abortions, that this debate has passed that point as well. Much like the little fetus first starting to grow in a raped woman its pretty much a no-brainer.
There are people out there who will debate you on all those things. Some are willfully stupid and acting in bad faith, others are just strange. You decide whether to debate them or not depending on whether you think you can defeat whatever argument they have and whether they're likely to get traction on their own. Right now the pro-life movement has enough traction to be somewhat relevant, and they can get sympathetic lawmakers into office often enough to pull stunts like this. Ignore them at your peril. The overt edgelord racists and geocentrists ain't got shit, frankly.
 

Iwasamwillbe

Rational Big-Brained Deep-Thinking Philosopher
kiwifarms.net
In the case of conception the woman has literally created another being within her body which can kill her. It should be the woman's choice what to do with it.
And what about the man? It's not like eggs become fertilized on their own. Why doesn't the man have any say on the matter?

It doesn't matter if the man doesn't give birth to the baby, since the baby literally would not exist without the man. It would be completely unethical to remove the man's desires from the equation.
 

Slartibartfast

Discordian Archivist
kiwifarms.net
I have no moral objection to abortion myself, all I ever want out of the government about abortion is a hard-and-fast rule on what constitutes human life.

If a fetus isn't a person, than causing the death of an unborn child is not an act of manslaughter or murder; it is at best destruction of property. If causing the death of a fetus is an act of manslaughter or murder, than so is an abortion. In the second case, there can be cases where the act can be considered self-defense, the same as with any killing.

I have a personal distaste for the wiggly areas in this kind of legality.
 

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
kiwifarms.net
I'm just waiting for Brett "Chuggy" Kavanaugh to uphold precedent on Roe v. Wade like he should be expected to, thereby saving all of the women's sweet hot pussies for infinite abortions and cementing his place in the pantheon of feminist heroes.
Kavanaugh explicitly stated he didn't plan on tilting at that particular windmill so I'm really not worried. It's just amusing to see people run around with their hair on fire screaming about abortion being in jeopardy because some dumbfuck from Alabamer decided to lob a softball to the Supreme Court.
 

Arachnophile

"Ahuhuhuhu~"
kiwifarms.net
So how's this going to be enforced anyways? Ultimately if the police decide to turn a blind eye (which is probably what will happen otherwise you'll wind up with a hell of a lot more doctors/people in jail), nothing's going to happen. I generally prefer living babies to dead ones, but even I recognize that it comes down to a matter of personal choice under extenuating circumstances. This is just one of those "do-nothing" bills that lawmakers introduce and subsequently get smacked down by a higher court. Then the lawmakers use it as a talking point in their next campaign. Such a tedious dance...
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Last Stand

ProgKing of the North

^^^^FUCKTARD^^^^
kiwifarms.net
Even Donald Trump himself doesn't fully support banning abortion in the U.S. altogether and he even thinks that abortions should only be limited and available to such cases that involve rape, incest, or if the woman's life is in any danger because Donald Trump is pro-life but even he is pro-life within reason.
Trump talks the talk on being pro-life, but would anybody be shocked if it came out he's paid for an abortion or twelve? I wouldn't, nor would I hold it against him, to be honest, except for the fact that it makes him a hypocrite to suddenly be Mr. Pro-life.
I think the whole abortion debate is stupid to begin with. The left only backs abortion to appease nigger bitches, and funnel shekels back into their party. People can spin it however they want, but you're still killing a kid when you preform an abortion.
Yeah but you hate minorities so even if you think it's murder shouldn't you be in favor of abortion?
At the core this bill is a giant fuck you to D.C., Virginia, and New York. "They voted to legalize partial-birth abortions and it offended us so we're going to criminalize nearly all abortion to offend them". It's "owning the libs" or "we just want to start a conversation" in bill form.
What an excellent use of the time and money of the taxpayers of Alabama! Also real nice of them to fuck over the people of their state who want an abortion to have a temper tantrum.
And what about the man? It's not like eggs become fertilized on their own. Why doesn't the man have any say on the matter?

It doesn't matter if the man doesn't give birth to the baby, since the baby literally would not exist without the man. It would be completely unethical to remove the man's desires from the equation.
Honestly if the man and the woman have different opinion on the matter, I'm fine with the tiebreaker going to the person who's gonna actually go through the painful medical procedures, rather she's the one who wants the abortion or the one who wants to have the kid (although he should be allowed to opt out of child support in this case).

Anyway, the only good thing about this stupid law is that it doesn't have that exceptional out of state provision that Georgia's dumbfuck law has.
 

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
kiwifarms.net
So how's this going to be enforced anyways? Ultimately if the police decide to turn a blind eye (which is probably what will happen otherwise you'll wind up with a hell of a lot more doctors/people in jail), nothing's going to happen. I generally prefer living babies to dead ones, but even I recognize that it comes down to a matter of personal choice under extenuating circumstances. This is just one of those "do-nothing" bills that lawmakers introduce and subsequently get smacked down by a higher court. Then the lawmakers use it as a talking point in their next campaign. Such a tedious dance...
Hi and welcome to modern American politics, where people get elected on messages and not results

I personally think using abortion as casually as a whiteboard eraser is distasteful but I'd rather women abort than have a kid, resent it, treat it like shit and turn it into a career criminal or whatever. I'd also rather women learn how to use contraceptives properly and stop believing exceptional shit like "withdrawal is a good method" or "if I'm on top it won't reach the uterus" or whatever, but fixing stupid is pretty difficult.
 

GethN7

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This is sheer idiocy, not only because of secular law, but even the Bible itself makes this a WTF.

In Leviticus (edit: Numbers really, though Leviticus spells out the prerequisite conditions), there are instructions for how to induce a miscarriage (if a woman was unfaithful to her husband), and God personally killed a child (Bathseba's child with him) to punish David when he murdered Uriah so he could have Uriah's wife.

If GOD is gonna be that flexible, then I say let people have their choice in this life, let God sort it out in the next.
 
Last edited:
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino