J sayin’

Wow, this fundamental argument sounds familiar.......
.
Oh yah:
.
Why punish responsible gun owners with more gun laws? Why not increase the punishment for the the people who already break the current laws?

@the_grinch the government has compelled victims to seek child support from their rapists before
'
@puma1 I don't think the_grinch was advocating for suicide at all. He was just saying he understands why women would be inclined to turn to it. And I can't guarantee that wouldn't be on my mind in that situation either
'
'
As for the gun thing I have no bloody idea what that's supposed to mean. Who has the gun here? Is the vagina the gun? The penis? The feetus?

Tbh if the government and all these wannabe do-gooders really gave even a QUARTER of a damn about children, they would focus on fixing the goddamn foster care system. Or helping the kids that have been victimized/traumatized. Helping the ones in abusive homes. Adopting the ones without parents.
'
The fact that these people are more concerned about forcing feetuses into the world in horrific conditions than aiding the growing children already suffering is proof that these people do NOT actually give a single flying fuck about saving lives. This is entirely about control, and the fact that any of it was allowed to pass is one of the sickest failures of justice in the world to date

@xvarnah a victim doesn't want and shouldn't have to have ANYTHING to do with their rapist, and going through a child support claim would definitely count. I don't think grinch was referring to rapist when support was mentioned, I'm pretty sure they were saying rapists need to be put in jail for YEARS or better, life, rather than a few months. But the thing is, these states are legally forcing women to carry these children, but doing next to nothing to insure the father has ANY burden.

@celticrose oh no I wasn't saying that's what Grinch was getting at, I was just throwing it out there as another horrific thing that has happened, and will become an even widerspread issue if these states are allowed to get away with these horrible violations of human rights.
'
Some women who have attempted to get aid have been compelled by the government to sue their rapist for child support instead, essentially forcing them to be dependant on the rapist for the next 18 years, hoping the rapist won't make an attempt to contact or gain custody.
'
So basically a guy can rape a woman, assuming the woman successfully gets him prosecuted, the government can still then say "you MUST carry your rapists baby, and you MUST provide care, and if you need help you MUST rely on the man who raped you." All because abortion makes them feel icky, and actually looking out for women and children is apparently an abstract concept in their eyes.

Hell, if a man wants a woman to carry his baby all he has to do is poke holes in the condoms. Not all women can use IEDs and pills etc in the first place.
'
It's all so insanely screwed up and I'm not entirely against the concept of taking all the people responsible for this out into the street and sterilizing them. See how much they like having someone else deciding what rights they have with their bodies

I dont agree with side, but I would understand if a rape victim did it.
Why would you want child support from your rapist? To support a thing you never wanted? To have constant contact with a shit human being who is never likely to be properly tried?
Rapists get away with so much its disgusting.
Also, gun laws have nothing to do with forced pregnancies
This is why religion and politics NEED to be seperate. Even our founding fathers knew that. It's stupid that pur govt is allowed to make laws based on their religion (christianity to be precise) because not everyone is Christian and not everyone is religious.
Take me for example, I'm athiest and I dont give a shit if others have religion. I only give a shit if religious people feel like they can control my human rights or take away the rights of my little sisters

There have been cased where if a victim applies for assistance (food ECT) they are required to list the father of the child and the state automatically goes after child support. But in most cases the rape is cause for skipping that part, but it doesn't always happen. A case a few years ago got so fucked up by the lawyer the rapist (who raped mother at 12, when she got pregnant, then was convicted of 2 more rapes of 10 year olds in the following 8 years) was granted shared custody and given the mother/victim address. The system is fucked up.

Oof I think she knows a lot better what she's talking about than you do, coward guest.

Excellent comment, guest: it starts out with a nice "stfu," there's literally no punctuation, and you're either misspelling or deeply misunderstanding basic words throughout, and then another insult is tacked on the end like an afterthought. It was a roller coaster ride from start to finish. I'm...guessing it was a troll? If so, masterfully done. It made me question my own sanity more than one time.
,
Troll score: 8.5/10 which is truly unprecedented. Bravo.

@jasonmon really? I thought it was a fairly garden variety troll myself. I mean, it has the raise and potential controversy, but it lacks the legibility and basic reading comprehension to truly get a rise
I'd rank it a 4.5/10

the idea of summary judgment and execution or capital punishment should make anyone think twice on those fronts. Put asides what it says about us to answer a horrendous act against a human with another in kind- but consider what the precedent there is. If you were tried and wrongfully convicted and punished harshly- who do you get “payback” on? The judge? The lawyers? The accuser? The arresting officers? All of them? How do you pay back years in prison, or suffering, or a life of taken? Eye for an eye? Everyone involved in the trial dies too and that sets an example to deter wrongful arrest and conviction and be more careful in the future to others?

It doesn’t pencil out is my point. It cost society and tax payers to try and “punish” people and we get nothing out of it. Maybe a brief feeling for the wronged of vindication that won’t wash away their suffering and struggles or help put their lives back together and make them “whole” again. It’s not constructive. No one really learns anything and everyone loses something. We need better solutions. It’s easier to FEEL like we did something by just passing a law adding time to a crime or requiring public castration or similar punishments..

We all get to FEEL self righteous and safer and like we have power over crime and over our lives. But statistics show it doesn’t actually work. What’s easiest is seldom what’s best or there wouldn’t be any problems in the world at all because even the laziest person can do something easy. It’s easier to punish than it is to find ways to protect people from wrong while teaching and rehabilitating wrong doers so that they can serve a constructive purpose instead of being a detriment to society. It’s easier to seek vengeance in anger or fear than to feel like you let someone “get away with it” or “get off easy.” We WANT retribution, even when retribution serves little or no good and largely causes more harm than good.

So yes- rape is one of the most terrible crimes that a human can experience. It can destroy a person or their life, or can scar and change people forever. It undermines trust and the trauma can come back at any time and cause distress and problems in a persons life. It can make us feel weak or helpless and even perhaps overcompensate for that which causes its own issues. But- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Addressing social issues of consent and rape, teaching avoidance, funding counseling, aid, and support- building support structures in society and teaching us to look out for each other are better uses of resources and better for society than draconian punishments.

Actually, sorry, I communicated poorly. I meant the big drop in abortion rates is because of the availability of long-term options. The shot and the IUD - THOSE are the things insurance companies started covering in 2012. Those are the things that are kicking abortion's butt. If we keep focusing on family planning solutions that are long-term but easily reversible, abortion will keep fading. The other options like oral contraceptives and condoms are alright but they lead to a ton of unplanned pregnancies because people get forgetful or horny.
,
(Most abortions are from stable couples who already have at least one child and inadvertently conceived an unplanned addition.)

Ok point well made and taken. I tip my hat to you.

@guestwho when people talk about accesability, what they mean is getting the pill/plan B without a doctors prescripition. In the US many states require that girls go get a pap smear (Definition: being examined by a gynocologist) before getting a pill. As the costs for such a visit are sky-high this bars many underage girls from getting the pill. In more conservative states doctos may ask if you are married, in a relationship, etc. Making sure women can get the pill over the counter will prevent many abortions and will help out many young girls who fear getting pregnant and are afraid to tell their families.

Yeah and why don't we just stop requiring a prescription for all medicines? Birth control pills are hormones. Hormones are what control your entire body and essential life functions. Seems to me like something important enough to your health that you might want someone who knows a little more than you about the subject to be involved. Fuck it. Why don't we fight for "accessibility" to childhood immunizations without a doctor? What am I thinking? You don't want to bring children into the world. Ok we'll fight for "accessibility" to abortions without a doctor. While we're being stupid I demand "accessibility" to oxycontin.

Lol, yep that would be chaos @guestwho. We definitely need girls to see doctors for yearly exams and any hormonal contraceptives. The patients also get a huge amount of other services, too: education, cancer screening, an impartial party to ask questions.... It's not profoundly expensive, guest. It's mainly just a matter of getting people to get their butts in there.

Because that's the PURPOSE of the EDUCATION system. And if you don't want a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant because they don't understand the basic concepts such as you CAN get pregnant your first time, on your period, even if he pulls out, then SOMEONE needs to educate them and way too often that doesn't happen at home.

You're not telling me that I'm supposed to explain these things to my own children, are you? I can explain why they shouldn't talk to strangers, why they should wash their hands, why they should be kind to people and animals, but forbid I ever tell them about Ess-Eee-Ecks.
The American Education system builds drones at best and trains prisoners at worst.

Ummm..... no. And also... the argument makes no sense. “The American education system sucks and builds drones!” “Ok. Let’s improve it!” “WHAT? And let them educate my kids?!” I mean- hopefully you can see this is contradictory on some level? But the present quality of education asides- the purpose of school is to teach concepts and skills that can help a person successfully navigate through life. Spoiler alert? For those who aren’t in the top percentiles of things- being a drone is success compared to prison or destitution- which are still options of one rejects the idea of material success.

I never said improve it. I'm against public education, at least for my kids. Everyone else is free to choose as they want, or don't.
Hey! Lot's of successful people haven't graduated from High School! My uncle immigrated from El Salvador, started out as a tradesman and now owns one of the most successful plumbing companies in Los Angeles.
Education isn't beneficial for everyone because people don't learn the same way. Not everyone is meant for college. Not everyone has the same goals. Do you want the state teaching your kids about slavery? About sex? About interpersonal relations while maintaining self respect? Come on, dude. Gimme a break.

You state that the American education system builds drones. Celitcrose said let’s improve it... and your reply to the suggestion of an improved educational system was “you’d let the government educate your kids?!” Well yes- most people would. And if the system were improved as celticrose suggests there’s even less reason not to. It’s not an either or proposition. Just because your children are being taught things in school doesn’t mean that you can’t be involved in their education, discuss things they’ve learned and impart your own lessons or encourage them to find their own answers.

Likewise- I’m very happy for your uncle. Do the other 20% or so of California’s without a high school diploma also run the most successful companies in Southern California? This is a concept they taught us in school- you’re using logical fallacy and bias. Yes- you don’t need a diploma or degree to succeed, however not having a diploma or degree doesn’t mean success just because some people without them succeed. By the numbers you are more likely to fail. So for some people like your uncle, it works out fine. For most people however they do not end up nearly as well off as he has without a diploma.

Now- if the government isn’t teaching kids- who is? Most parents can’t educate and supervise their kids full time, and whatever qualms one has about the government teaching children can apply equally to a corporate education system- so tutors would be just as potentially perilous, and many can’t afford them. We could just let kids learn everything on their own, but building on information someone else has already gathered the hard way is a lot faster path to development than having each generation have to figure out the basics by themselves or rely on the chance that others will teach it to them. A plumber can teach their child to fix pipes but can’t teach them to be a geologist or an accountant or a lawyer- so are you proposing a return to some sort of feudalist caste system where families hold a trade through generations?

The one part of your argument that makes any sense at all is a healthy distrust of government. However, you can’t control what your kids learn. They will go into the world, they will make friends who by and large will influence their teens and twenties more than their parents in most cases. They will figure out who they are an what they believe in. We don’t live in some Confucian society built on the strong coherence and reverence for nuclear family- kids leave the nest and become their own people regardless. We try and teach and guide them as best we know how, but fears of “indoctrination” are ill founded here.

So again- unless you have something more to support your stance than “but, it’s the government!” Or “they might teach my children things I disagree with just like the world is full of things I disagree with that my child can learn if they like..” or “well so and so person I know once jumped out of an airplane without a parachute and survived so you don’t need a parachute to go skydiving!” etc- we return to square one- which is that you’re talking circular nonsense.

... I thought all the states that adopted the law went with the 8 weeks and medical/rape exempt.
This in unconstituonal. And against international human rigths. Alabama needs to get kicked from the USA

I've studied the Constitution. I can assure you that there is nothing in the Constitution about killing unborn babies.

I feel like there's a line or two about protecting citizens from government overreach and human rights violations?

@jasonmon but that's the government's favourite pastime!

@borkius states institute their own individual laws. Each one can have a different cut off. Alabama is from the moment of conception. And now there are TWO states who refused to include exceptions for victims of rape. That officially makes their abortion laws less lenient than friggin SAUDI ARABIA.

No, not exactly @jasonmon. Perhaps you should enroll in school somewhere.
However, y'all obviously don't understand what is going on in the world and just jump at whatever conservative bogeyman your antisocial media tells you to. First, Alabama is not the first state to pass a law like this and won't be the last. They're just the target the liberal media chose to hit this time. Second, and much more importantly, this law and the others like it in other states was never meant to actually be enforced. These laws have been passed for the express purpose of going to court. Conservatives are sick and tired of the non-stop liberal assault on morality and common decency, and New York and Virginia passing laws basically saying women can have abortions up to and even after birth was the last straw. These laws were written the way they were because conservative lawmakers knew the liberals would sue in a second. Now it can be fought out in the courts.

Yes, @guestwho, but by even considering let alone passing a ban that refuses to allow an exemption for victims is a slap in the face of women, clearly they matter less than a zygote. By implementing a law so extreme they are literally guaranteeing it will be put down with prejudice in the Supreme Court, without even coming close to challenging the standing Roe v Wade ruling, which is the main long term goal of these bills. Even Pat "feminism causes witchcraft" Robertson came out and stated that Alabama's ban was too extreme, yet still Missouri followed suit and also passed a "no exceptions" law, though at least they have an 8 week window. The entire point is to be able to defend the law SUCCESSFULLY in the Supreme Court in order to overturn RoeVsWade and establish a new precedent. That will not happen with an extremist law with no room for leniency or compassion.

And yes, it is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment grants the right to bodily integrity, and to make decisions about family. Its pretty much the same reason that the government cannot force someone to donate anything (blood, organs, bone marrow) even if that person is the only possible way to save the recipients life. We are not obligated to sacrifice our bodily autonomy to save another, especially if at the time they are not self sustaining and won't be for months. Now, once the fetus becomes reasonably viable out of utero (aprox 6 months), I would say that changes, for one the woman would have had plenty of time to weigh her options, but that is a far cry from any of these new bans.

I love how it was pretended like they were going to give a civilized answer, but then they literally just offered a bunch of insults and opinion poorly disguised as absolute fact and then called other people extremists and uneducated because they see a flaw in that logic

@celticrose these laws are purposely extreme. As I explained. No one. And I mean no one in any of these state legislatures intends these laws to be implemented, much less enforced. The purpose of these laws is simply to entice lawsuits from the liberals. They are bait. And they have worked. Debating the merits of these laws like they are "real" is inane.

@xvarnah It does seem like that's the government's favorite pastime haha
,
@guestwho Hi! Thanks for taking the time to respond. I can tell you're very passionate about politics and I can appreciate people with a passionate quality. I've done the whole "school" thing but I'm always open to learning if you want to point me in a direction you think is good.
,
I have to say, I am disappointed you only see an issue with two points of view, when it's really a kaleidoscope. You're missing the subtlety in the larger situation. I'm going to look past the emotion in your comment and respond to your underlying message:
1) Many states are shoring up their abortion laws in case Roe gets overturned. 1.3% of abortions happen after 24 weeks to protect the health/life of the mother. Otherwise they are not permitted anywhere.
2) Abortion rates have been plummeting. Abortion rates will increase if abortion is banned. If you think abortion is murder, please understand overturning Roe will not be a "win."

3) Conservatives aren't "tired of the non-stop liberal assault on morality and common decency" lol, they are exploiting the fact that the Supreme Court has more conservative justices and they've calculated, very intelligently, this is the best time to overturn Roe.
,
It seems like I keep saying this, but it's important: no one wants abortion to be a thing. No one wants lives snuffed indiscriminately. I'd like to live in a world where the reasons justifying abortions don't even exist. The best way to do that is to see why people get abortions and do what it takes to prevent them before it is even considered. (That's been working beautifully. Abortion is down 24% in the last ten years.) The worst way to do that is to drive abortion back underground because then we won't know whom to help.
,
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18119528/abortion-rate-decline-2018-birth-control-iud-pill
,
https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-03-21/abortion-rates-where-and-why-theyre-falling

Does that make sense? Sorry for the long comment but that was as condensed as I could go and still communicate the key ideas.

I am passionate about politics and as you can probably tell I am a proud conservative. However, most of us on the right are not the rabid anti-abortion, anti-woman, anti-whatever-the-liberals-think-is-fun ogres the Democrats paint us as. Most of us recognize that there are circumstances in which abortions may be reasonable, but the left like to make such arguments "all or nothing." Basically, they want any woman (hell the other day I heard a claim that men should have the right to abortion on demand because, of course, "men" can get pregnant too) to have the inalienable right to have these parasitic tumors ripped out and disposed of whenever the woman sees fit. Most of us are not necessarily patently anti-abortion, but this ever accelerating trend is actually a symptom of a much deeper and insidious societal disease.

I'm curious how you think that banning abortions will actually make them increase?
As to your reference to Roe v. Wade, challenging that decision is the stated intent of the Alabama law. As I said earlier this, and other laws, were passed specifically as an entree to the courts. Personally I see this as folly, primarily because Roe v. Wade was not about abortion. For anyone who is ignorant of the history of this topic, this lawsuit was about personal privacy. Basically, the Supreme Court adjudicates constitutional questions. There is nothing in the US Constitution about a woman's right to abortion. There is, however, an enumerated right to privacy. Yes this started with abortion, but the actual court decision did not legalize abortion. It has been twisted and lied about for decades. Because of that fact I see nothing to be gained from revisiting a fight that really has little bearing on the topic du-jour. Therefore, I see no reason for concern about these laws

@guestwho- to your previous comments, I went to high school and then some, so what I do clearly recall is that the constitution of the United States protects private religious beliefs- not private moral beliefs; and more importantly that those beliefs are protected for the private citizen in question- NOT enforced upon others. Cases like Lawrence v. Texas which said a state can’t tell two consenting adult homosexuals they can’t have sex together in private because other people thought it was wrong. Maybe Sandra Day O can say it better than me...

moral disapproval” of homosexuality “is insufficient to satisfy” even the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny. She continues about how the court has never held that on its own moral disapproval was enough to justify legislating personal rights. The erosion of morality isn’t a legal concept because morality is a social value held by a given group. If someone holds your morals, they will not do an “immoral” thing wether it is legal or not. The fact that laws are reflecting a stance you see as immoral isn’t the law killing morality- it’s society rejecting that morality and the law adjusting to the changes in society. Morality isn’t enforced through law- you aren’t granted rights in the constitution under the speculation you exercise them morally- only legally.

Your freedom of speech allows you to speak immorally- nothing in the constitution says otherwise, and the spirit of the constitution is to avoid such censorship of speech on moral grounds. You can say what you like regardless or morality- so long as it is not illegal. An illegal use of speech is one which causes or would cause damage to society or the ability of other citizens to exercise their rights and freedoms- not something that someone else thinks is immoral. Is it illegal to run a business because communists think capitalism is immoral? How would that even work?

@guestwho- and here’s where you’ll get a real kick- you say earlier you’ve studied the constitution and it doesn’t say anything about “killing babies”? Huh... the constitution... which gives rights to all US citizens... and um.... when... does a person become a US citizen? Would that fetus be able to pass a border check point without its mom? Cause it has no birth certificate, no social security number, it doesn’t exist as a legal citizen of the United States. It doesn’t have constitutional rights and is not a citizen of a state until it is born there. How does a state claim jurisdiction over a person who doesn’t exist? Who has jurisdiction over my great great great grand nephews who also haven’t been born yet?

Okay, for the umpteenth time, the "right to privacy" isn't Constitutional, and THAT is the basis for why RvW was a unsubstantiated ruling, which the states intend to use as grounds for a new statute once these laws are challenged and taken to the Supreme Court. And we have established everyone knows these are instituted specifically to challenge the RvW ruling, BUT in order to overturn the ruling, the state has to SUCCESSFULLY defend their law as well, something these extremist laws make impossible. Its like asking your parents to extend your curfew by telling them you need more time to smoke crack.
And NO, there is no federal statute stating abortions are illegal after 24 weeks, because all aspects are determined state by state and every bill that has been introduced to set cut off term have been stalled in either the Senate or Congress. In fact the only federal restriction is the outlaw of Partial Birth Abortion which is just so sickening I don't know how they were ever legal.

We are talking about a non resident alien, and denying it entry to the United States- sending it back to the conditions it was trying to escape, and whatever fate that is- no different than refusing entry to a fully grown political exile who would be killed if they aren’t allowed entry no? An abortion doesn’t have to be the termination of a fetus- it can simply be removed from the mother and deported in accordance with US policy for non citizens. It is free to seek politics asylum or citizenship through other legal channels like any other human. It’s a minor of course so it’s parent... oh. Shit. Well- I’m sure it’s country of citizenship can issue it a representative then.. oh shit. Well- if we don’t mind a few new laws we can appoint it a public immigration advocate like any other non sponsored person seeking entry to the US.

@guest_ I'm afraid that after a long day of working my ass off and paying taxes so that unemployed liberal snowflakes can sit in mommy's basement all day long and pontificate on whatever the current liberal cause celebre, I have neither the will nor the inclination to give you more than an eye roll. I do apologize.

Life’s tough all around it seems. Don’t worry though, a negative attitude that ignores statistical data for emotional appeals, and great eye rolling skills will take anyone far in this great country. I erased a previous comment because I wasn’t sure if your rant about snowflake liberals without Jobs was just a general and off topic spewing of resentment based on the way your life has gone- or of it was directed in some way towards me. If it’s the former- hope things turn up for you. If it’s the latter- well... I’ll have to laugh about that one myself given that you don’t know anything about me and since this is the internet you may or may not believe if I told you. But more likely in this case you wouldn’t believe it. Off to a dinner date for me. Enjoy your evening and hope tomorrow is better for you.

@guestwho I agree with you that revisiting Roe v. Wade is a largely political move that won't really do a lot in the short term. But it is a good start for people who ultimately want to oust abortion completely.
,
I am also annoyed by people making "all or nothing" statements. I think political affiliation had less to do with it than blind emotion. It seems like I hear constant screaming from both extremes of the political spectrum haha
,
As for abortion rates going up if abortion is outlawed, I based that off the links above. They're both fascinating, short articles. The Vox report just shows how and why abortion rates have been declining. The first two paragraphs of the US News and World Report article highlight abortion rate declines in areas with liberal laws and conservative laws. The former have declined much more steeply than the latter. They say a new report shows that "laws restricting abortions do not result in the procedure occurring less frequently, merely less safely."

From this logic, if the US swings from a liberal stance to a conservative stance, the drop in abortion rates would slow down. That means more abortions would happen, which clearly isn't what anyone wants, especially not people with a classically conservative viewpoint.
,
This is what kills me about debates that are "hot button" issues. People (even lawmakers) on every side are more likely to go in to shut-down-and-scream mode, which really doesn't get us anywhere constructive. It can suddenly be too hard to see the forest through the trees.