Alabama USA: Medieval or religious fundamentalist thinking?

Yes, there are reasons to put them down if it comes to it. Yes they are just like people and have a range of personalities.
We both know this is a spread bet on where the SC will come down on this. But the pricks in Alabama actually want this mad taliban crazy. Lets not defend religious crazys.
 
My neighbour is OPP and had a failure police service dog as a pet and it had severe problems. One morning it cornered my ex right when she walked out of the drive shed, in hindsight I wish it tore her to pieces, but I digress. She managed to shut the door as it was mid lunge and called the plod who came an took it away permanently. Some service dogs can be retired and live out their lives in peace, others like this one could not.
My last range there was an ex-SF bloke who used to rock up with his dog that retired around the time he did and they let him keep it. The dog was well behaved but, it had the thousand yard stare, used to start looking very eager when people were doing moving drill's on the range and had a bit of an attitude (it became my mate because I fed it beef jerky when he wasn't looking). I think the poor dog was getting Afgahnistan flashbacks as he had had the dog over there for two tours. He told me that when they were out and about he used to send the dog into villages and compounds ahead of his team as an early warning system...........shit life really, I can see why the dog had an attitude sometimes.
 
My last range there was an ex-SF bloke who used to rock up with his dog that retired around the time he did and they let him keep it. The dog was well behaved but, it had the thousand yard stare, used to start looking very eager when people were doing moving drill's on the range and had a bit of an attitude (it became my mate because I fed it beef jerky when he wasn't looking). I think the poor dog was getting Afgahnistan flashbacks as he had had the dog over there for two tours. He told me that when they were out and about he used to send the dog into villages and compounds ahead of his team as an early warning system...........shit life really, I can see why the dog had an attitude sometimes.
This particular German shepherd was a failure and got booted out of training, never even made it to the street. The genius heard about it and decided he’d take it home as a pet and that didn’t work out that well, still wish it had been quicker, would have saved me paying a divorce solicitor .....
 
My last range there was an ex-SF bloke who used to rock up with his dog that retired around the time he did and they let him keep it. The dog was well behaved but, it had the thousand yard stare, used to start looking very eager when people were doing moving drill's on the range and had a bit of an attitude (it became my mate because I fed it beef jerky when he wasn't looking). I think the poor dog was getting Afgahnistan flashbacks as he had had the dog over there for two tours. He told me that when they were out and about he used to send the dog into villages and compounds ahead of his team as an early warning system...........shit life really, I can see why the dog had an attitude sometimes.
You bad man, you fed the puppy without the handlers permission! That would actually get one into some serious trouble.
 
We both know this is a spread bet on where the SC will come down on this. But the pricks in Alabama actually want this mad taliban crazy. Lets not defend religious crazys.

Well this case will more than likely lose to be quite honest. It is to draconian, but it is sensational which will get it fast tracked. Sometimes in order to win, one side has to play the long game. Whilst I am not in favour of abortion and find it distasteful, under certain circumstances it would be merited. But as a general birth control practice funded by the tax payers....hell
no.
 
So if she had the kid and you all paid for it because she could not, that’s OK?
Pennies for the abortion versus 10s of thousands bringing up an unwanted child? Poor economic argument.
Why should I be forced to pay for her Choice? maybe to you thats fine and Im more than willing to let YOU pay for abortions then, But I should not have to
 
Why should I be forced to pay for her Choice? maybe to you thats fine and Im more than willing to let YOU pay for abortions then, But I should not have to
Not sure anyone is suggesting 'god damn commy healthcare' would pay for this. The issue is banning things, like communists do.
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
My son is 5 and half, full of life and he is my world. However early screening at 14 weeks showed he was was positive for a rare generic disorder. Survive to birth is around 40% and if born lifespans are measured in months. The babies are normally sedated as they are in so much pain. We hit the 1% positive marker but needed additional testing to see if it was a false positive. That can only happen at 19 to 20 weeks, if positive we had a week to decided if we wished to abort, 21 weeks being the magic number here in Canada. It was a horrible period but thankfully we were false positive and nothing but happiness. But, if he had been with this disorder our child would have been born, and had to spend their short period of life in pain. How can that be morally right?? In the case of positive we would have aborted. To not do so would have been cruel.

But if we had lived in Alabama then we would have delivered a child that would not be able to breath for themselves, needed 24 hour care and most likely been put in a medical coma to prevent them screening out in pain - their nerves are over excited and no amount of drugs can stop the pain receptors firing.

Years ago I talked to an old school friend. She had had an abortion after being raped by her step-father. She thinks about the "child" but knows that had it been born every day she would have looked in to the face of the child of her own families rapist.

If we truly believed that we should protect the "children" and life means life then the law needs to be with the same penalties for men who have sex that can lead to pregnancy unless planned and agreed upon by both parties. If government is so concerned it would produce a legal form to ensure both parties agree to the forthcoming event. And if they do break the law then forced vasectomy to make sure they don't do it again. Which is less than the 99 years Alabama is proposing.

The more I live nextdoor to the US the more I feel it is on the brink of collapse and that it is no different than the fucked up religious fruitcake countries you see in the Middle East. Trump frightens me - Pence scares the shit out of me. He is properly religious wack job with an eye to the second coming.
 
My son is 5 and half, full of life and he is my world. However early screening at 14 weeks showed he was was positive for a rare generic disorder. Survive to birth is around 40% and if born lifespans are measured in months. The babies are normally sedated as they are in so much pain. We hit the 1% positive marker but needed additional testing to see if it was a false positive. That can only happen at 19 to 20 weeks, if positive we had a week to decided if we wished to abort, 21 weeks being the magic number here in Canada. It was a horrible period but thankfully we were false positive and nothing but happiness. But, if he had been with this disorder our child would have been born, and had to spend their short period of life in pain. How can that be morally right?? In the case of positive we would have aborted. To not do so would have been cruel.

But if we had lived in Alabama then we would have delivered a child that would not be able to breath for themselves, needed 24 hour care and most likely been put in a medical coma to prevent them screening out in pain - their nerves are over excited and no amount of drugs can stop the pain receptors firing.

Years ago I talked to an old school friend. She had had an abortion after being raped by her step-father. She thinks about the "child" but knows that had it been born every day she would have looked in to the face of the child of her own families rapist.

If we truly believed that we should protect the "children" and life means life then the law needs to be with the same penalties for men who have sex that can lead to pregnancy unless planned and agreed upon by both parties. If government is so concerned it would produce a legal form to ensure both parties agree to the forthcoming event. And if they do break the law then forced vasectomy to make sure they don't do it again. Which is less than the 99 years Alabama is proposing.

The more I live nextdoor to the US the more I feel it is on the brink of collapse and that it is no different than the fucked up religious fruitcake countries you see in the Middle East. Trump frightens me - Pence scares the shit out of me. He is properly religious wack job with an eye to the second coming.
Better hide deep in the woods, and leave all your decent stuff for easy looting. I would prefer your quality booze, and some Cuban’s btw.
 
The bullshit about "lifestyle reasons" is often used by the pro-lifers as a catch-all to shut down the debate. From what I've experienced, one of the main reasons for terminations is that young women become aware of the fact that they're about to enter into an ongoing obligation lasting (at least) 16 years. That thought is too much for them and they don't know if they can hack it.

Let's face it, in other walks of life you're allowed to dip out of a duty (a different job in the company, a post with more responsibility etc) if you have the feeling that you wouldn't be able to manage it, but where babies are concerned it, suddenly and inexplicably, becomes a moral question.

MsG
That is pretty much, exactly my thoughts..... Its a thoroughly modern thing to look for help. If you get fat eating lard then the state will offer you relief, if you frequent dodgy bars then the state will meet your medical needs. If you punch a door, the state will provide an ambulance. If you partake of a drug another ambulance is on its way....

Given the state is subsided by everyone, then nobody has the right to suggest a citizen has no say over a policy which involves public money. Private abortions is between the mother and whatever moral compass she has, but this whole issue has being politicised beyond the ridiculous.

Finally the BBC the impartial and unbiased organisation is obsessed with abortion and guns in the US. In both instances its quite clear its stance and give licence that it really is an abortion in its own right.
 
While I balance precariously on this fence, I wonder whether there will be a rise in 'Big Pharma' producing and marketing easily available, over the counter medications clearly marked 'NOT TO BE TAKEN IF YOU MAY BE PREGNANT'
 
While I balance precariously on this fence, I wonder whether there will be a rise in 'Big Pharma' producing and marketing easily available, over the counter medications clearly marked 'NOT TO BE TAKEN IF YOU MAY BE PREGNANT'
Bearing in mind how utterly ruthless Big Pharma is when there's a sniff of a profit, I would imagine so.

ETA: Once sales started surging, then of course, they would jack up the price on those meds as well.
 
Apologies just seen this post, and wanted to point out your premise was and complete and utter horsesh1t given that you’re comparing a fetus to a viable infant.

Thanks.

T
By definition, a fetus is viable, even you were a fetus once. If dependency is the defining factor, should society be able to bump off new-borns and toddlers who can't look after themselves if it so chooses? The principle involved is clear and you're drawing an arbitrary line to create some sort of moral excuse.

Except in cases of abuse/extreme disability or, considerable bad luck, the justification for abortion is entirely social. It plays an important role in that space and, given how our society works, we're better off with it than without it.

But let's not kid ourselves and create some giant moral edifice whilst pretending that it's a high-minded celebration of a woman's right to choose. It's a convenient remedy for those too stupid or lazy to use contraception and it causes less social havoc than the alternative.

If we're honest, it's a necessary evil. If you want a moral component, neuter the parents.
 
By definition, a fetus is viable, even you were a fetus once. If dependency is the defining factor, should society be able to bump off new-borns and toddlers who can't look after themselves if it so chooses? The principle involved is clear and you're drawing an arbitrary line to create some sort of moral excuse.

Except in cases of abuse/extreme disability or, considerable bad luck, the justification for abortion is entirely social. It plays an important role in that space and, given how our society works, we're better off with it than without it.

But let's not kid ourselves and create some giant moral edifice whilst pretending that it's a high-minded celebration of a woman's right to choose. It's a convenient remedy for those too stupid or lazy to use contraception and it causes less social havoc than the alternative.

If we're honest, it's a necessary evil. If you want a moral component, neuter the parents.
Whilst some women do use abortions as birth control, I would hazard a guess that it really isn't that many. It's an invasive, unpleasant procedure and not particularly convenient. Societal and peer pressures may make that waiting time for an abortion rather fraught.

Having said that, according to the NHS website, repeat abortions make up 34% of all abortions, with the dominant age band being in women over 35 years old.

This makes sense in as much as a) women who are older have more chances to have abortions and b) women who are pregnant later in life run a much higher risk of an unviable foetus and/or birth defects.

My personal opinion is that if a woman wants repeated abortions, she should be allowed to have as many as she wants because that isn't the sort of person who should be breeding anyway.

I used to be friends with a woman who got a letter from the Department of Work and Pensions telling her to go back to work or her benefits would be cut. She decided to have a competition open to all comers - who could make her pregnant the quickest. Yes, she would rather have another child with a random guy than go to work part time. After a series of miscarriages, she grudgingly went back to work but I'm no longer friends with this person.

But where does it end? Will the morning after pill now be outlawed? Will masturbation?
 
a
By definition, a fetus is viable, even you were a fetus once. If dependency is the defining factor, should society be able to bump off new-borns and toddlers who can't look after themselves if it so chooses? The principle involved is clear and you're drawing an arbitrary line to create some sort of moral excuse.

Except in cases of abuse/extreme disability or, considerable bad luck, the justification for abortion is entirely social. It plays an important role in that space and, given how our society works, we're better off with it than without it.

But let's not kid ourselves and create some giant moral edifice whilst pretending that it's a high-minded celebration of a woman's right to choose. It's a convenient remedy for those too stupid or lazy to use contraception and it causes less social havoc than the alternative.

If we're honest, it's a necessary evil. If you want a moral component, neuter the parents.
I have already stated upthread (as have others) that abortion is deeply unpleasant and would pretty much agree that it’s a necessary evil, though not necessarily using the same terms.

Your argument that it’s no different to killing toddlers is utterly ridiculous. Viability refers to the ability to survive outside the womb. Currently 25 weeks is considered the point from which the baby will have a strong chance of survival.

As our knowledge and medical science increase, there is certainly a debate that needs to be had about where the upper limit for abortion should be set.

Most abortions however take place when the fetus is little more than a clump if cells. Eg not viable! There’s enough emotion in this debate already without placing abortion on the same level as infanticide.
 
a

I have already stated upthread (as have others) that abortion is deeply unpleasant and would pretty much agree that it’s a necessary evil, though not necessarily using the same terms.

Your argument that it’s no different to killing toddlers is utterly ridiculous. Viability refers to the ability to survive outside the womb. Currently 25 weeks is considered the point from which the baby will have a strong chance of survival.

As our knowledge and medical science increase, there is certainly a debate that needs to be had about where the upper limit for abortion should be set.

Most abortions however take place when the fetus is little more than a clump if cells. Eg not viable! There’s enough emotion in this debate already without placing abortion on the same level as infanticide.
His point is that it's on a moral spectrum and where you land on it is an arbitrary one, rather than there being an objective standard where it is either "good" or "bad".
 
One of the (female) Alabama lawmakers who opposed the bill (I can't mind her name now) wanted to introduce an amendment that would make vasectomies a crime, using much the same arguments put forward by the anti-abortion bunch. I thought that was quite a clever move, notwithstanding that it was struck down.

MsG
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top