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

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

In Leviticus, 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.
I mean, yeah but if you open the "Leviticus says" door all kinds of exceptional shit comes through. Apparently my cotton-poly blend socks will send me to hell.
 

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
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.

Yeah but you hate minorities so even if you think it's murder shouldn't you be in favor of abortion?

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.

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.
For one, I don't blindly hate "minorities" (they're not really minorities, most of the world isn't white). I find it distasteful that "minorities" can act like absolute savages, and corrupt a society they had little to no part in helping to create, while those whom did have a major part in creating those societies are forbidden from criticizing them, yet are criticized themselves for pretty much anything. As for whether, or not abortion helps curb their population, I'm not convinced it does, and beyond this, if they want to engage in such barbarism, they can return to their own shitholes, and do whatever they please.

Oh, and if this is really your argument, then aren't you basically admitting to being "racist" yourself?
 

GrungyLawnChlorinate

confirmed hairless and stable
kiwifarms.net
Something tells me the South (or some state) would try to legalize segregation and ignore The Civil Right Act as they're doing with abortion and Roe v. Wade.
Modern day calls for segregation, at least successful ones, tend to be initiated by black folk, and occur in primarily far outside of the dated stereotype of backwater Southern states you're operating off of.
but you're still killing a kid when you preform an abortion.
1557620487369.gif

Just because it can feel the horrific pain we are inflicting on it doesn't mean we have to give a shit.
That's one beef I have with the whole debate: so many euphemisms. It seems immature and disingenuous, like when someone refers to a mastectomies as 'top surgery' or phalloplasty as 'bottom surgery'. Why not be honest with yourself and call killing an infant what it is, infanticide, instead of couching it as simply an aborting a fetus or clump of cells. The term 'pro-choice' is pseudo-empowerment ambiguation. You are either pro-infanticide or anti-infanticide. There are plenty of good reasons to be for and against, but if it squicks you out so much that you cannot even speak honestly about the procedures and their results, then you probably should not be debating the subject. 'Pro-life' is at least an honest label, though also ambiguous.

Keep harping on about rape and danger to the mother, but those are the edge cases, the minority of the cases. Fine, abortion should be allowed for exceptional cases, by the end of the 1st trimester at the latest. That's not good enough though! They want to be able to kill infants all the way up to the point of birth, and some even want to kill them past the point. By refusing to be reasonable and claiming that killing a child whenever you want is okay as long as its inside of you the pro-infanticide crew is guaranteeing that there will be no end to battles against their extremist stances, and they are courting the possibility that infanticide will be outlawed altogether or to such an degree that reasonable cases will be denied, like in cases of rape or deformity or mothers' medical necessity.

There have been more reasonable attempts of restrictions on infanticide, for example, in Michigan where they recently voted to outlaw D&E abortion. But no! All manner of mutilating and torturing an infant to death must be open to us! The pro-infanticide crowd will not be reasonable on this issue. It will be vetoed by the 'right side of history' governor and then forced onto the ballot.

'My body, my choice' is an untenable and unacceptable position when a second life is involved. That they must resort to the endless games involving semantics on when exactly it is magically imbued with life is ridiculous. Either you support killing infants or you don't, but at least be honest enough with yourself to call it what it is. If your whole argument depends on lying to yourself about the reality of the situation you are not mature to partake in infanticide.

Say it loud and proud: I support killing infants (under certain circumstances). I support infanticide, and not only when medically necessary or when ethically responsible, but whenever I damn well feel like it. Don't like it? My infant, my choice.
 
Last edited:

TowinKarz

Thoroughly Unimpressed
kiwifarms.net
I'm gonna laugh when the USSC refuses to hear this garbage after a Federal Judge stays it and a circuit court invalidates it.

They seem to forget the USSC can choose to let lower courts opinions stay on the grounds that "We already decided this one a long time ago you dipshits"

There has to be some new Constitutional issue raised to make the court visit R v W again, this raises no new issues, and is, as described, an unenforceable mess.

EDIT - You have to raise a new question, not just re-state an old one with more outrageous claims. When the USSC rules "The Government cannot ban you from wearing pink pants" you cannot get them to overrule themselves by going back to them and saying "Even UGLY AND ILL FITTING pink pants? Surely that's different...."
 
Last edited:

ProgKing of the North

Close to the edge, just by the Riverlands
kiwifarms.net
For one, I don't blindly hate "minorities" (they're not really minorities, most of the world isn't white). I find it distasteful that "minorities" can act like absolute savages, and corrupt a society they had little to no part in helping to create, while those whom did have a major part in creating those societies are forbidden from criticizing them, yet are criticized themselves for pretty much anything. As for whether, or not abortion helps curb their population, I'm not convinced it does, and beyond this, if they want to engage in such barbarism, they can return to their own shitholes, and do whatever they please.

Oh, and if this is really your argument, then aren't you basically admitting to being "racist" yourself?
Yeah, black women who can trace their roots here back hundreds of years should just go back to Africa if they want an abortion after being raped, the primitive savages!

And it's not my argument, I'm just parroting a talking point I've heard from other 1488 fags and wondering what your take on it was. The rest of your exceptionalism doesn't fit this thread so I'll avoid commenting on it here.
 

ButterBar

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

In Leviticus, 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.
You dont need the bible to make a logical pro-life argument though.
 

cactus

Cactus Juice Connoisseur
kiwifarms.net
Modern day calls for segregation, at least successful ones, tend to be initiated by black folk, and occur in primarily far outside of the dated stereotype of backwater Southern states you're operating off of.

View attachment 760628
Just because it can feel the horrific pain we are inflicting on it doesn't mean we have to give a shit.
That's one beef I have with the whole debate: so many euphemisms. It seems immature and disingenuous, like when someone refers to a mastectomies as 'top surgery' or phalloplasty as 'bottom surgery'. Why not be honest with yourself and call killing an infant what it is, infanticide, instead of couching it as simply an aborting a fetus or clump of cells. The term 'pro-choice' is pseudo-empowerment ambiguation. You are either pro-infanticide or anti-infanticide. There are plenty of good reasons to be for and against, but if it squicks you out so much that you cannot even speak honestly about the procedures and their results, then you probably should not be debating the subject. 'Pro-life' is at least an honest label, though also ambiguous.

Keep harping on about rape and danger to the mother, but those are the edge cases, the minority of the cases. Fine, abortion should be allowed for exceptional cases, by the end of the 1st trimester at the latest. That's not good enough though! They want to be able to kill infants all the way up to the point of birth, and some even want to kill them past the point. By refusing to be reasonable and claiming that killing a child whenever you want is okay as long as its inside of you the pro-infanticide crew is guaranteeing that there will be no end to battles against their extremist stances, and they are courting the possibility that infanticide will be outlawed altogether or to such an degree that reasonable cases will be denied, like in cases of rape or deformity or mothers' medical necessity.

There have been more reasonable attempts of restrictions on infanticide, for example, in Michigan where they recently voted to outlaw D&E abortion. But no! All manner of mutilating and torturing an infant to death must be open to us! The pro-infanticide crowd will not be reasonable on this issue. It will be vetoed by the 'right side of history' governor and then forced onto the ballot.

'My body, my choice' is an untenable and unacceptable position when a second life is involved. That they must resort to the endless games involving semantics on when exactly it is magically imbued with life is ridiculous. Either you support killing infants or you don't, but at least be honest enough with yourself to call it what it is. If your whole argument depends on lying to yourself about the reality of the situation you are not mature to partake in infanticide.

Say it loud and proud: I support killing infants (under certain circumstances). I support infanticide, and not only when medically necessary or when ethically responsible, but whenever I damn well feel like it. Don't like it? My infant, my choice.
Okay, but infant is a medical term and you have to be born to be an infant, so wouldn't it be fetucide?

Also your little .gif there is the most dangerous form late-term abortion for women (it can puncture the uterus), partial-birth was the safe one, but George W. Bush made that one illegal.
 

Sprig of Parsley

kiwifarms.net
Okay, but infant is a medical term and you have to be born to be an infant, so wouldn't it be fetucide?
The emergence of abortion into mainstream thought as something that isn't taboo is new enough that we actually haven't coined a term specifically for the killing/destruction of a fetus to my knowledge. Filicide is generally accepted to refer to children but it might be inspecific enough for someone's purposes, whatever.
 

Ashy the Angel

World's Second Worst Leftist
kiwifarms.net
Sorry for the late reply
You realize that depending on whether you are in say New York City or a west virginia coal town whether or not it can live outside the womb is going to change dramatically right? Thats entirely technologically dependent and arbitrary to draw the line there. How is it a part of her body exactly? Does she have 20 fingers until she crosses that week where viability occurs and then she has 10?
She made the egg, her body is nourishing it and providing it life. It is literally attached to her by an umbilical cord that provides food from whatever the mother eats. Its apart of her, therefore she should have the legal right to abort it if she wishes.
Logically if you view a fetus as a human being deserving of the right to live you dont get to kill them based on who their dad is.
The mother's rights supersede that of the fetus she carries, ESPECIALLY if she didn't want it.
My moral misgivings of their choice to end a seperate and unique human being. I'd be more than happy to provide them with state and private charity and support. A fetus doesn't have rights. Its a fetus.
I find it funny that you're using Ben Shapiro as your avatar, because not once in this argument have you used logic. You're arguing based solely off of feelings and morality, not reason. I argue from the stance of personal freedom, and choice. You literally want to take away a woman's rights based on what? Nothing tangible whatsoever.
 

ButterBar

kiwifarms.net
Okay, but infant is a medical term and you have to be born to be an infant, so wouldn't it be fetucide?

Also your little .gif there is the most dangerous form late-term abortion for women (it can puncture the uterus), partial-birth was the safe one, but George W. Bush made that one illegal.
Whats the moral difference between a non-medical late term abortion and firebombing a premie ward?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: GeneralFriendliness

Ashy the Angel

World's Second Worst Leftist
kiwifarms.net
The emergence of abortion into mainstream thought as something that isn't taboo is new enough that we actually haven't coined a term specifically for the killing/destruction of a fetus to my knowledge. Filicide is generally accepted to refer to children but it might be inspecific enough for someone's purposes, whatever.
We did coin a term. Its called abortion. If your arguments have broken down to the point that you have to start incorrectly naming things in a vain attempt to evoke an emotional response congratulations! You have no argument.
 

ButterBar

kiwifarms.net
Sorry for the late reply

She made the egg, her body is nourishing it and providing it life. It is literally attached to her by an umbilical cord that provides food from whatever the mother eats. Its apart of her, therefore she should have the legal right to abort it if she wishes.
Earlier you said when its viable outside the womb its fine. By this argument here you can get an abortion up to 9 months no problem. Also why does being a part of her matter? An infant can hardly survive on its own after all and needs care as well. Should they have legal rights?

The mother's rights supersede that of the fetus she carries, ESPECIALLY if she didn't want it.
I think both are equal as both are human and each has an equal right to live.

I find it funny that you're using Ben Shapiro as your avatar, because not once in this argument have you used logic. You're arguing based solely off of feelings and morality, not reason. I argue from the stance of personal freedom, and choice. You literally want to take away a woman's rights based on what? Nothing tangible whatsoever.
I also argue from personal freedom as well. I believe everyone has the right to live, and I dont see how you can logically argue the unborn dont have that right or at least that it makes more sense to me than just assigning a random cut off date or saying god bless abortions and letting you go up to 9 months no problem. I also notice you changed from "it is the womans body" to "its attached to it". I mean clearly you have to say I'm using some logic right?

The premies are wanted. But then again, I'm a fan of quality over quantity and if someone is stupid enough to pay thousands for a late term abortion, I don't trust them with a kid in the first place.
Why does want give you a right to live? If the premie is going to be given up for adoption, if its not wanted, then is it okay? Are orphans worth less than others?
 
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.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino