How long did you guys date?
Out of line.
Drop this tangent.
[ /Moderating ]
Whaaat?!? I mean, daaamn, Alabama, you know you’ve gone over the top when Pat “The feminist agenda…is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” fucking Robertson is saying your abortion bill is “extreme” and has “gone too far”.
(Also: Pat Robertson is still alive. And still has a TV show! :smack:)
So, if a pregnant woman is told she could have a miscarriage if she doesn’t go to bed for the next seven months, and she ignores this advice, goes about her daily routine and has a miscarriage, is she guilty of murder. If she’s carry three fetuses, guilty of mass murder? Has more than one miscarriage, is she a serial killer?
The mind boggles.
I checked my calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1.
I’d be careful if I were Pat Robertson. The American Taliban (aka Republicans) might jail him and put him under the lash
Fixed it for you 
To rephrase that a bit…suppose she* can’t * go on bed rest because she has to go to work to pay her bills and afford the health insurance she’ll need for the unwanted pregnancy. Or heck, let’s assume she does want the pregnancy. Either way, I’m sure there would be plenty of people who would be more than happy to blame her for the miscarriage, since it was “irresponsible” of her to get pregnant in the first place. >.<
No. You violated SDMB rules by messing with a poster’s quote. Even innocuous changes are prohibited.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
I still don’t get what the architects of the Georgia and Alabama bill think they will achieve with these laws. Do they really think all 5 conservative justices on SCOTUS will pass it?
That’s exactly what they’re hoping, and it’s also why Pat Robertson wasn’t happy with the Alabama law - he thinks it’s so extreme that the Supreme Court won’t accept it as a challenge to Roe.
As much as I like the idea that this country would never ban abortion because its existence is the perfect way to rile up the conservative voting base, I still think the right to abortion is in danger in the US, and I don’t think politicians will stop there, as there are plenty of other issues that can be manipulated in just as vile of a manner as they’ve managed to do with abortion.
Underneath it all, it really should be viewed as a coordinated effort to manifest a White Christian Nationalist movement. The real goal is to overpower their opponents with laws and tactics that polarize people. White Christian Nationalists have essentially achieved minority rule. Their ideas are espoused by maybe 20-30% of the country – perhaps some elements of their views have broader appeal when watered down, but in their raw form, the Republican policies appeal to a very small minority of people. And yet, here they are in control of a majority of governorships, a majority of state houses, the Senate, the Presidency, and until January of this year, the Congress. They way to achieve minority control is to polarize, which has the effect of getting the tribe to huddle together while simultaneously pushing the other side toward more extreme positions, leaving others in the middle. Polarization in and of itself is one tactic, but ultimately, establishing control and dominance, once in power, is the other. And that is what the Republicans are doing now. They could simply be content with a more popular set of restrictions on abortion, but that’s not what this is really about. Via religious fundamentalism, they are attempting to assert power.
They won’t stop there.
Race is another, and I suspect it’s a matter of time before we see more overt forms of it. They’re starting with “illegals”, but it’ll some become “immigrants”, and discrimination against pretty much anyone on grounds of liberty.
This drives me insane. I’m as pro-choice as can be, but I actually have more respect for anti-abortion advocates who wouldn’t allow exceptions for rape or incest. They are protecting the life of the baby, period. And when it comes to the literal life of the baby vs. the literal life of the mother, they can pick a side in that battle, too.
But these conditions on what type of baby’s life is to be protected? Fuck that.
Yeah, I get that babies from incest *might *be damaged, and carrying a baby that was conceived through rape *could *be traumatic, but nobody’s *making *women abort these babies, so we trust them to decide for themselves whether to have the baby or not in those situations that “we” have deemed to be troublesome. Seems to me that if she can handle that decision, then she can decide if any baby she’s carrying will ruin her life in other ways.
At least the no-exceptions anti-abortion people are honest in what they’re doing. Abortion laws with exceptions for rape and incest are worse–they have the veneer of protecting women while in practice disrespecting them. “Yes, you have the choice…as long as it’s a choice I agree with.”
I don’t see it as so heinous. It could be boiled down to the belief that as adults, you understand that sexual intercourse can cause pregnancy if birth control fails or if you don’t use it. If that happens, then you have voluntarily created a life, and as adults, it is up to the mother and the father to care for that life.
However, as a society, we will not draft people into parenthood, especially a rape victim. So in that case society will absolve you of that responsibility, even though in the process an innocent life is taken.
In a way, it is crudely similar to a homeowner shooting a burglar. We don’t have a penalty of summary execution for burglary, but we make an exception that in that very moment, the terror and safety of the homeowner is paramount to the burglar’s life, even if the burglar had no intent to kill. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it shows the balancing we do in these things in other areas even involving life.
Re: the bolded:
most people think the only question is Roberts , the other 4 will very likely OK these laws. Roberts is now considered to be a semi-swing vote now. He upheld Obamacare .
Yes. They do.
Ugh. My reasoning was that nobody would want to spend the money on pregnancy tests. I didn’t consider the less-accurate method of tracking periods. Proof yet again that no matter how low you set the bar, someone will find a way to slither under it.
Thanks for the (disturbing) info.
Suuure. Because no immature eighteen-year-old ever mistakenly believed “you can’t get pregnant if” myths or failed to fully comprehend the possibility of a condom breaking. Darn you kids, you quit having sex right now! And abstinence–the only foolproof pregnancy prevention–is incredibly popular among married couples who can’t afford or don’t want (more) children. If you don’t want children, don’t have sex. So simple. So unrealistic.
And I don’t think “recruit” is the word you’re looking for: it’s conscript. Georgia’s law excludes rape victims who don’t report the rape to the police. If you want to stand firm and say, “Well, if it REALLY happened, she ought to go to the cops,” then you clearly don’t understand the fear of retaliation that rape often entails. So it’s not rape victims who are protected; it’s those rape victims who report to the cops. Too afraid to do that, and you can consider yourself conscripted–in Georgia, anyway. In Alabama, you’re conscripted into parenthood whether you report or not.