• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    Right now we are in LIVE MODE for a severe weather event.
    Take a moment and join us for free and get access to member only features like LIVE MODE.
    CLICK HERE TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
  • Current Severe Weather Threads
    Multiday Severe Weather Thread (May 17-21, 2019) CLICK HERE

Political Thread (21 Viewers)


maroonedinhsv

Member
Messages
182
Location
Harvest, AL
Doubt it. The newest generation, from my experience, isn't big on legislation restricting the rights of women and families. And that's how they see it. If you oppose abortion, good for you don't do it. Otherwise there's as many or more pro choicers than pro lifers, and the greater trend hasn't been towards more pro lifers.
Abortion does restrict the rights of families - it restricts the right of the father to raise a child (abortion can be performed without consent of the father), and it completely eliminates the rights of one family member. Do you define “family” as something different? As far as “if you oppose x, just don’t do it”, why have laws?
 

Evan

Member
Messages
949
Location
McCalla, AL
Democratic state Sen. Vivian Figures told Chambliss that a rape victim's trauma "is not your business."
"You don't have to raise that child, you don't have to carry that child, you don't have to provide for that child, you don't have to do anything for that child," she told Chambliss. "But yet you want to make that decision for that woman, that that's what she has to do."
First off, rape is a horrific act of violence and I feel nothing but shock and sorrow for victims of such an unspeakably cruel and degrading act. Our government and society does not provide enough care, resources and support to rape victims, and that should be something we should all demand more of. But should one act of violence justify continuing the cycle and making an innocent life an additional victim of violence? That's really the question here.

Ms. Figures is using a combination of the strawman fallacy and the false dichotomy fallacy. An abortion ban doesn't force a rape victim to raise a child or provide for it. She excludes the potential of adoption and other outcomes. Which is odd considering only around 1/5th to 2/5ths of pregnancies causes by rape end in abortion. These statistics are based off of the Guttmacher Institute's 1996 abortion statistics and a 1996 AJOG journal article on the number of pregnancies that occur due to rape. 1,336,160 abortions in 1996 and around 32,100 pregnancies due to rape. Guttmacher surveys show between 0.5% to 1% of abortions are due to rape although only 0.5% are primarily due to rape (other factors in conjunction with the rape are the reason why an abortion is chosen). Florida statistics show a range of 0.08% to 1.6% whereas other states reporting data typically show rape being the stated cause for an abortion being between 0.4 - 0.8% with South Dakota being an outlier at 1.6%. Because of the difference in state laws governing abortion legality and the collection of abortion statistics, I believe a number of 0.5% to 1% is most supported by available data.

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002-9378(96)70141-2

https://lozierinstitute.org/abortion-reporting-florida-2018/

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#6

Being charitable to Ms. Figures, I'm sure that she's aware that the vast majority of abortions are elective, and that abortion due to rape is uncommon. I'm also sure that Ms. Figures is aware that in the United States (and internationally as well) when abortion is restricted to rape, incest, and health/life of the mother, the number of abortions that are performed for those reasons skyrocket. This suggests that people who are set on obtaining an abortion will modify their rationale for obtaining an abortion if that increases their ability to obtain an abortion.

To bring this all together...Ms. Figures knows that if Alabama lawmakers leave in an exception for rape that the number of abortions due to rape will increase substantially if the law were to be allowed to go into effect. That's the "dirty secret" so to speak.

Additionally, public support of exceptions for rape, incest, and the life/health of a mother have majority support unlike elective abortion. Those types of cases are the emotional heartstring pulling type of cases which Planned Parenthood and activists always highlight when pushing back on abortion regulations. Even if Alabama had left in exceptions for rape and incest, those types of abortions would be the ones being highlighted on AL.com and by activists talking to the news media. They'd say that Alabama's new law was just a breathe away from doing away with abortion for rape survivors, incest, etc.

Pro-Lifers and the Lawmakers who wrote the Alabama bill know all of this. Whether a rape/incest exception was kept in the bill or not, the debate would still be about the 0.5% - 1% of abortions that occur instead of the 98% of abortions that are due to elective choice. That's because the majority of Americans don't support elective abortion on demand.

Gallup and Planned Parenthood will try to say abortion views are based on Trimester (they are to an extent for all abortions), but elective abortion hasn't been supported by a majority of Americans in decades.

I truly believe the debate on abortion is distorted by ignorance of the general populace. They know they don't support elective abortion on demand, but are they aware how uncommon abortion is when performed due to rape, incest, or the life/health of a mother? Are they aware that when restrictions are increased on elective abortion that suddenly the number of abortions performed due to rape, incest, and life/health of a mother suddenly increase significantly (or that in countries abroad that have abortion laws limiting abortion to those categories that the percentage of abortions due to those categories is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than found in countries that allows elective abortion). In other words, are people aware that the very limited number of abortions performed ostensibly for the reason of rape/incest or a mother's health are likely already inflated due to people trying to get around abortion restrictions or avoid societal/familiar stigmas of having an elective abortion?

I'd take an abortion compromise right this second that left in exemptions for rape/incest and life/health of a mother if there was strict enforcement and verification. But that would never be acceptable to abortion advocates because they're not fighting for those victims. They're fighting to preserve elective abortion, and victims of rape/incest, or the extremely rare cases in which a mother's life is at risk, are simply props in their fight. I hate to the jaded, but anyone who has extensively followed abortion in this country knows it is true. Hell, I even think many of these activists believe their own lies. They truly believe they are fighting for the > 1-2% of abortions. But they're not and they never have been because the only acceptable outcome to them is elective abortion on demand.
 

gangstonc

Member
Messages
1,369
Location
Meridianville
In this bill, I would liked to have seen more of a push for contraceptives as well. In states that allow easy access to contraceptives, abortion rates naturally declined 64%

I also would like the penalty for rape increased to 99 years.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
949
Location
McCalla, AL
Doubt it. The newest generation, from my experience, isn't big on legislation restricting the rights of women and families. And that's how they see it. If you oppose abortion, good for you don't do it. Otherwise there's as many or more pro choicers than pro lifers, and the greater trend hasn't been towards more pro lifers.
Disagree strongly. Even Slate has said that there isn't majority support for abortion outside of exceptions for rape/incest or life of mother and 1st Trimester.

If you give people the option, only around 45% believe abortion should be legal for elective reasons as the poll from Gallup shows and as page 3 of the poll Slate mentions shows. 62% say abortion is morally wrong and a majority also say life begins at conception.

Even if you confined the debate to the labels of Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, it's more or less a tie. Pro-Life has had more supporters at times as have Pro-Choice. But over the past 20-25 years there's been a substantial increase in Pro-Life and a drop in Pro-Choice.

See Gallup's first chart here.

But Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice is an over-simplified way of looking at abortion since each label means different things to different people. Some Pro-Life people support abortion particularly for rape/incest or life of mother while some Pro-Choice individuals are morally against abortion or want to see significant abortion restrictions. Polls have consistently found that the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice label is a not a good way to look at the abortion debate. You have to look at people's actual views on abortion, and a majority of Americans actually support overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to implement abortion restrictions. In fact, most Americans want abortion limited to the first-trimester or to only allow it in cases of rape/incest or life/health of a mother.

If this was an issue that Americans were actually allowed to directly vote on, we would see a number of abortion restrictions. Even Slate says it is tough to see how abortion could survive in its current form without the intervention of courts.

So, yeah, I maintain history will show that abortion is a barbaric thing. Because most abortion is elective. To the tune of 98% of abortions. It isn't due to rape/incest or because of a threat to a mother's life/health.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
949
Location
McCalla, AL
In this bill, I would liked to have seen more of a push for contraceptives as well. In states that allow easy access to contraceptives, abortion rates naturally declined 64%

I also would like the penalty for rape increased to 99 years.
I have no problem with contraceptives being provided free to those who cannot afford them nor with expanding access to contraceptives under medical supervision. I differ with my Catholic brethren on this issue and believe that properly monitored contraceptive usage rarely causes the contraceptive to function as an abortifacent as long as certain guidelines are followed (which I realize most users don't care about unfortunately).
 

Evan

Member
Messages
949
Location
McCalla, AL
I don’t understand why we are ramping up for war with Iran when Russia actually attacked us.
Few people whose wisdom and judgment I'd trust less in such a situation than Donald Trump. Thank God the Republicans in Congress have always been willing to check Trump when he gets out over his skies. Oh, wait...

The last thing we need to do is get into a war with Iran. It's just a fool's errand. And I'm not even suggesting that Trump is dumb enough to intentionally get into a war with them. But he's dumb enough to bumble into one. History should have taught us that plenty of wars get started due to misunderstanding, accident, or the escalation of a smaller armed-conflict.

I'm under no illusions that Iran is one of our biggest enemies and gobal threats. They killed a lot of American troops in Iraq. I despise much of their leadership.

My suggestion is for the Iranians to fast-track Trump Tower Teheran and offer Trump Org an oil-well concession somewhere. Or invest in Jared Kushner's 666 tower. If bribery fails to work they could always run a social media campaign pushing for Trump's re-election. They'll have no problems after that.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
949
Location
McCalla, AL
How is there ALWAYS a tweet??!!??

 

Matt

Member
Messages
1,025
Location
Alabaster
Few people whose wisdom and judgment I'd trust less in such a situation than Donald Trump. Thank God the Republicans in Congress have always been willing to check Trump when he gets out over his skies. Oh, wait...

The last thing we need to do is get into a war with Iran. It's just a fool's errand. And I'm not even suggesting that Trump is dumb enough to intentionally get into a war with them. But he's dumb enough to bumble into one. History should have taught us that plenty of wars get started due to misunderstanding, accident, or the escalation of a smaller armed-conflict.

I'm under no illusions that Iran is one of our biggest enemies and gobal threats. They killed a lot of American troops in Iraq. I despise much of their leadership.

My suggestion is for the Iranians to fast-track Trump Tower Teheran and offer Trump Org an oil-well concession somewhere. Or invest in Jared Kushner's 666 tower. If bribery fails to work they could always run a social media campaign pushing for Trump's re-election. They'll have no problems after that.
The buildup in my opinion is a deterrent. If Iran is foolish enough to attack us we need to teach their ass a lesson they won't soon forget.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 15)

  • barcncpt44
  • G
Top