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

mr.moon1488

kiwifarms.net
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.
" I'm just parroting a talking point I've heard from other 1488 fags"
No, you're parroting a talking point people of your political persuasion have used in an appeal to "1488 fags." Most natsocs don't hate non-whites, we just want to preserve white culture, and traditions, which is a position you're fine with, so long as it's non-whites taking it. Furthermore, outside of this bill, every single piece of anti-abortion legislation ever presented has included exceptions for rape, incest, and the woman's life being endangered. Beyond this, it's rather telling that you instantly jump at the most extreme cases, rather than talking about most cases, which are just as a result of someone desiring an abortion because a child would be an inconvenience.
not_all_white.jpg
 

*extremely mom voice*

captagon sweeties
kiwifarms.net
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.
You look at this picture and you don't get the urge to kill it?

1/3 of fertilized eggs get flushed out naturally anyway and no one gives a shit, so it's not like nature or God attaches any particular importance to a fetus as such. Sometimes a woman's body is just going to go "ehhhhh nah" for no readily apparent reason, and yeet the ~precious developing life~ into the cold world with no chance of survival. Shit happens.

Until that sucker is wailing in the midwife's arms, it's property in the same sense that your liver is your property.
 

It's HK-47

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Okay, this is pretty much the kind of political food-fight I expected to be in here, but I think a couple things here ought to be mentioned. For one: The bill is only 1,511 words long. That's like 3.5 pages. Just go read it.

The law does not outlaw all abortions; it does not demand jail time for all doctors who perform abortions, and it explicitly protects women who procure abortions from prosecution. While the law bans most abortions in Alabama, section 4b lists certain exceptions. “An abortion shall be permitted if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother.” If the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the life of the mother, the law permits abortion.

In all other cases, the bill outlaws abortion throughout the state. In section 5, the law makes itself clear: “No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.” Doctors who perform abortions may face serious criminal consequences, but women will not.

I doubt anyone's going to care too much one way or the other, I just wanted to drop this in here and try to outline the bill a little more clearly before the food-fight kicks off again.
 

Sprig of Parsley

kiwifarms.net
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.
Is a tapeworm a part of its human host? I'm not sure where you're going here, as one doesn't even need to establish that something is not merely attached but part of its host in order to attempt to justify its removal/termination. I'm getting kind of mixed messages here. I've talked to ardent pro-choice advocates who didn't hesitate to make the comparison and immediately divorced themselves from the idea of mother and fetus being one.

The mother's rights supersede that of the fetus she carries, ESPECIALLY if she didn't want it.
On what grounds? Why does not wanting something cement that further?

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.
And you're swinging into the personal why here?

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.
Would you call, then, a man punching a pregnant woman so hard in the stomach that she loses the pregnancy an abortion?
 

The Last Stand

kiwifarms.net
I mean, if you consider ancient Romans making a plant go extinct for explicit purpose of abortion as new, then go right ahead. Of course I have no idea how taboo abortion was in ancient Rome.
Since other cultures are mentioned, China has an interesting take on abortion and family values. China's population was controlled by the government, abortion being an option to go through that. Difference here is couples didn't have a choice in the matter, and often preferred the boy over the girl.

That's more barbaric than the argument of pro-life abortion. Whether how you feel about abortion, the option to have one or not should be readily available. Would you prefer them do less safe methods of abortion, which would be worse off for the unborn and mother.
 

Sprig of Parsley

kiwifarms.net
I mean, if you consider ancient Romans making a plant go extinct for explicit purpose of abortion as new, then go right ahead. Of course I have no idea how taboo abortion was in ancient Rome.
If it's the plant I'm thinking of it was basically a contraceptive and not an abortifacient, wasn't it?
 

Ashy the Angel

World's Second Worst Leftist
kiwifarms.net
Earlier you said when its viable outside the womb its fine. By this logic 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?
I never said I wasn't against abortions up to the point of conception. My point was that removing all other factors the baby would die disconnected from the mother, much like an internal organ. I may have misspoken, so let me be clear. Pre-conception, which is the point of birth, a woman should be able to abort her infant.
I think both are equal as both are human and each has an equal right to live.
I don't consider a fetus a human life. Therefore, it has no rights, and it certainly doesn't have more rights than the woman who carries it.
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?
Its not a "random cutoff date". When the baby is born it no longer poses a threat to the mother, clearly. A woman can die in childbirth. This is clear evidence for a cutoff point for abortion to me. Post-birth I don't support abortion because at that point the child poses no threat to the mother. If you are arguing in favor of taking away rights from an adult human in favor of giving rights to what can barely be called human, you are anti-personal freedom, period. Its like arguing that an appendix has more rights than the person its about to explode in. This is why pro-choice is called pro-choice. A fetus cannot choose. A woman can.

I didn't even want to bring in 9 month abortions but if the choice is none or up until conception I choose the latter.
 

Sprig of Parsley

kiwifarms.net
I never said I wasn't against abortions up to the point of conception. My point was that removing all other factors the baby would die disconnected from the mother, much like an internal organ. I may have misspoken, so let me be clear. Pre-conception, which is the point of birth, a woman should be able to abort her infant.
Organs are not organisms per se and would NEVER be viable and functional outside a body no matter how much time passed. Your logic opens up weird and unnecessary doors like that. "Can we compare a spleen to a fetus?"

I don't consider a fetus a human life. Therefore, it has no rights, and it certainly doesn't have more rights than the woman who carries it.
Good, now we have a clear standpoint to start from. Fetus != human life. Can you delineate clearly where it goes from not-human life to human life?

Its not a "random cutoff date". When the baby is born it no longer poses a threat to the mother, clearly. A woman can die in childbirth. This is clear evidence for a cutoff point for abortion to me. Post-birth I don't support abortion because at that point the child poses no threat to the mother. If you are arguing in favor of taking away rights from an adult human in favor of giving rights to what can barely be called human, you are anti-personal freedom, period. Its like arguing that an appendix has more rights than the person its about to explode in. This is why pro-choice is called pro-choice. A fetus cannot choose. A woman can.

I didn't even want to bring in 9 month abortions but if the choice is none or up until conception I choose the latter.
I can choose to burn down a forest's worth of trees. Trees cannot choose, I can, therefore...? I don't know why you felt that was necessary. A person in a coma can't choose either, but you're still going to go to jail if you do anything untoward to them.
 

GrungyLawnChlorinate

confirmed hairless and stable
kiwifarms.net
@GrungyLawnChlorinate So is it an infant the moment the splooge hits the egg? Is the morning after pill also infanticide?

Your take seems to be "I think it's murder so anyone who disagrees with me is obviously just being disingenuous"
As defined by Alabama law it should be considered murder:
PERSON.  The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.
Even under California's definition it should be considered murder if it occurs at the end of the 1st trimester:
The third party killing of a fetus with malice aforethought is murder . . . as long as the state can show that the fetus has progressed beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks.
Of course that is only if someone other than the mother's designated infanticide specialist murders it. It's only murder sometimes, it's only considered a person sometimes. When I want to kill it, it's not murder; when someone else kills it, that's murder.

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.
A dilation (dilatation) and evacuation abortion, D&E, is a surgical abortion procedure during which an abortionist first dilates the woman’s cervix and then uses instruments to dismember and extract the baby from the uterus. The D&E abortion procedure is usually performed between thirteen and twenty-four weeks LMP (that is thirteen to twenty-four weeks after the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period).
Supposedly that is typically a 2nd trimester method, not a late-term method, but can be employed third-trimester if digoxin overdose method fails to result in birthing of infant corpse, to assist in disassembly of the corpse into comfy chunks.

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.
That wasn't coined, it was co-opted from a generic term for cessation or atrocity. To simply call it abortion is being unnecessarily vague. Infanticide or even fetucide would be apt, but abortion is needlessly abstract. Call it what it is, have some courage to stand by your convictions when they are laid bare.
 
Last edited:

Sprig of Parsley

kiwifarms.net
Humans generally want control over anything and everything. Case in point: this.
Your want of control is irrelevant to whether you should have control, generally, speaking as a habitual control freak in regards to things that are immediately adjacent to me. It's more about need, tied to responsibility. Framing things in "I want" often enough will make you look like a petulant child. Establish need, and establish a right to that control.
 

Ashy the Angel

World's Second Worst Leftist
kiwifarms.net
Organs are not organisms per se and would NEVER be viable and functional outside a body no matter how much time passed. Your logic opens up weird and unnecessary doors like that. "Can we compare a spleen to a fetus?"
For the purposes of this argument I'll defer to the wording in the Roe .V Wade ruling itself:
viable.png


That's a legal definition of viability in regards to a fetus, and most were content with using that definition until conservatives sperged out in Alabama.

Good, now we have a clear standpoint to start from. Fetus != human life. Can you delineate clearly where it goes from not-human life to human life?
Moment of birth.
I can choose to burn down a forest's worth of trees. Trees cannot choose, I can, therefore...? I don't know why you felt that was necessary. A person in a coma can't choose either, but you're still going to go to jail if you do anything untoward to them.
Your response has also confused me. And also in many cases the family members of the person in the coma can choose to take them off of life support. The person in the coma doesn't get to choose, as you said, and unlike a fetus they don't pose a health risk to anyone. Do you support the family's right to remove them from life support? If so, your stance against abortion makes you a hypocrite.
 

The Last Stand

kiwifarms.net
Your want of control is irrelevant to whether you should have control, generally, speaking as a habitual control freak in regards to things that are immediately adjacent to me. It's more about need, tied to responsibility. Framing things in "I want" often enough will make you look like a petulant child. Establish need, and establish a right to that control.
The argument of abortion and why people get it is a complex issue. I don't think you would convince strong oppositions of the topic of hand, as the other way around. Trying to undermine Roe v. Wade, one of the most important cases in American history, is going to create a ripple effect. From what I'm seeing: what a woman is allowed to do and in what circumstances. Again, it is more complex than what you or I are saying.

The idea of men regulating female bodies is creepy, I'll grant that. Almost akin to Sharia Law enforcing what women can and can't do. This bears a similarity to that.
 

ButterBar

kiwifarms.net
I never said I wasn't against abortions up to the point of conception. My point was that removing all other factors the baby would die disconnected from the mother, much like an internal organ. I may have misspoken, so let me be clear. Pre-conception, which is the point of birth, a woman should be able to abort her infant.
Conception is when the pregnancy actually starts. Also, you again contradict yourself. With modern medical technology you can be disconnected and survive at just over 20 weeks of pregnancy. If you abort past this line you abort a human being able to survive without the internal support of the mother.
I don't consider a fetus a human life. Therefore, it has no rights, and it certainly doesn't have more rights than the woman who carries it.
No one is arguing it has more rights. However, since its a unique human life containing its own code seperate from the mother determining everything from eye color to height to likelihood of mental illness. Why isnt it human life?
Its not a "random cutoff date". When the baby is born it no longer poses a threat to the mother, clearly. A woman can die in childbirth. This is clear evidence for a cutoff point for abortion to me. Post-birth I don't support abortion because at that point the child poses no threat to the mother. If you are arguing in favor of taking away rights from an adult human in favor of giving rights to what can barely be called human, you are anti-personal freedom, period. Its like arguing that an appendix has more rights than the person its about to explode in. This is why pro-choice is called pro-choice. A fetus cannot choose. A woman can.
I dont think it can barely be called human and an infant has as much right to live as an adult. How is an 8 month pregnancy barely human but a newly birthed premie clearly human? Infants cant choose either, they cost a hell of a lot and are extremely time intensive to keep alive. Why cant a baby be left in a dumpster? The only, flimsy logic is that there is a minor threat to die in childbirth. For me, there is a near 100% chance of a death occurring with an abortion. If we can ever get a 0% chance of death in childbirth though, would you be pro-life?
I didn't even want to bring in 9 month abortions but if the choice is none or up until conception I choose the latter.
Why is location so supremely important to you? If the baby were simply able to be placed two feet to the left from the womb to a crib it would instantly go from barely human to completely human for you despite zero change in physiology, makeup, intelligence, ability to survive on its own or age. No quality in the infant changes. How does location determine humanity?
 

Ashy the Angel

World's Second Worst Leftist
kiwifarms.net
Is a tapeworm a part of its human host? I'm not sure where you're going here, as one doesn't even need to establish that something is not merely attached but part of its host in order to attempt to justify its removal/termination. I'm getting kind of mixed messages here. I've talked to ardent pro-choice advocates who didn't hesitate to make the comparison and immediately divorced themselves from the idea of mother and fetus being one.
For all intents and purposes a fetus' relationship with its mother is pretty parasitic when you actually think about it. So yeah, I would agree with that analogy.

Remember I'm arguing from the point of bodily autonomy here. For some odd reason conservatives tend to place children on a pedastel when inside the mother's womb, but when they're born all the fawning melts away and its No Welfare for You you leech, bootstraps etc. This is a tangent, you can pay it no mind if you wish.
And you're swinging into the personal why here?
My bad.
Would you call, then, a man punching a pregnant woman so hard in the stomach that she loses the pregnancy an abortion?
Murder, since it wasn't the choice of the woman who carried the child. Also punching a pregnant woman violently harms both the mother AND child, its nowhere near comparable to a safe medical abortion.
 

*extremely mom voice*

captagon sweeties
kiwifarms.net

They kind of do.
The majority of miscarriages happen before a woman is aware that she's pregnant. This is actually the function of a period: if a fertilized egg isn't genetically fit enough to grow quickly and embed in the uterine wall before the next period, then it gets flushed out when the endometrium sheds. These are the ones I'm referring to, which no one cares about, in a personal or moral sense. Bringing a child into the world means that on average, two die because their mother's body decided they were genetic garbage. No one faults a mother if her womb keeps killing her children. It might be a personal tragedy, but not a moral loss.
 
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