Alabama Proposes New Law That Makes Abortion Punishable By Up To 99 Years In Prison

Nice to know that as well as forcing women to carry a baby, you now are wanting to ban them from having alcohol too.

I haven't said the mother's bodily autonomy should always take preference and that's a misapprehension of my position. I have said several times the issue is incredibly complex and requires nuance, not a black and white approach. Both the mother's and the fetus' rights should be considered and my position is that the mother's rights in general should take priority. However, I have also said that past a certain point (24 weeks) when the fetus enters a more advanced stage of development, it's rights should be greater protected.

There clearly is a difference between an embryo and a child. Again, you wouldn't say throwing away a two week old embryo in a lab is morally equivalent to killing a child, would you?

So it's about reaching a balance between an embryo/fetus and the mother's bodily autonomy. 24 weeks seems to do that.


It's not 'live and let live'. It's demanding a woman carry a baby, and have it live and grow inside her, while you do nothing.

It's about reaching a balance, and approaching an issue such as this with nuance and emotional intelligence. Something you have not shown any signs of being willing to do.

Babies don't consent to their existence, do they have the right to live?

Her bodily autonomy has little to do with a whole other life that is growing inside of her.

Because alone sperm has no potential, same with an egg, but a fertilized egg has the potential ( a very likley one) to form a person like us, so therefore I belive that life begins at fertilization as I cannt justify life beginning after that or before.

And no this is a philosophical question and not just one about science.
I have also not made any sexist comments.

Why should I serve a pregnant mother alcohol? What about my autonomy and wellbeing, the guilt I feel knowing the irreversible damage I am causing a child? What about the actual child, who will suffer the consequences of their mother's autonomy their entire life? There should be a right not to serve. If she wants to destroy her child I will play no part in it. I would gladly lose my job over it.
If you believe it takes preference over the life if the fetus what else is there beyond that to be concerned of? My position is the human life should have priority over her desire to kill it.



I doubt one of us will convince the other of our position. But if my base position is at conception, and yours is at 24 weeks, surely 9 weeks is the compromise? The point from which it is an actual fetus. Beyond then it becomes far too humanoid for to not to be considered killing a human life. And I said the state should fully support the mother as much as necessary- not do nothing. Letting live is exactly what it is. I would say throwing away a 2 week old embryo is morally wrong and should be avoided even if its not equivalent to a 3 year olds life.

Would you be happy to serve a clearly ill person with clear signs of alcoholism?

I don’t know what a clear sign of alcoholism is, though bartenders are actually allowed to not serve people if they see they are too drunk. But there is a separate human life involved with the mother, who is innocent of any crime and will suffer his entire life for her actions.

Except it does, because it's still her body. You're mandating that someone give their body to something which they do not want to give their body to.

In no other situation would we even require, by law, that someone give even a part of their body to something/someone else without their consent first.

I thought you might be serious, if a tad too ideological. But claiming that one drink will cause irreversible damage to the baby is not backed by any scientific evidence whatsoever.

And it strengthens the suspicion that this is really just about controlling women and treating them as baby making machines.

You're demanding women have a baby grow and live inside them, with all the challenges that brings, without so much of a moment's concern for the wishes, health or bodily autonomy of the woman.

Again, your total lack of empathy, nuance and pragmatism on an issue as difficult and complex on this speaks volumes.

It’s pretty clear you show no desire for ‘pragmatism’ or compromise, as anything that isn’t exactly your view = total lack of empathy and nuance, and ‘0 concern for the mothers wellbeing’. Your constant repetition of the view your enemy is evil and hates women sounds ideological, as if your not actually thinking for yourself.

Beyond 24 weeks, you, just like me, demand that women have a baby grow and live inside of them, with all the challenges that brings, without so much of a moment's concern for the wishes, health or bodily autonomy of the woman. Can’t you grasp the foolishness of your accusations. The only difference is I believe the point should be earlier, at conception. I was willing to compromise at 9 weeks, at point of fetus, but still you refuse. You truly do lack concern for the preborn human, I am able to have concern for both.

Live and let live

Again, your lack of nuance is startling. I have said several times the issue is complex.

The further developed, and closer to human life a fetus is, the greater its rights and protections should be. Choosing any point is going to be a arbitrary but 24 weeks seems a genuinely sensible and pragmatic balance between the rights and wishes of the mother, and the rights of the fetus. That obviously isn't showing '0 concern for the fetus'. The woman should be given a long time to decide if she wishes to have the child.

Again, it's not 'live and let live'. That's an astonishingly simplistic and ignorant take on a highly complex issue. It makes it sound like the fetus is growing in a lab, rather than inside another human being. Surely, since the woman is going to be carrying a baby, letting it live and grow inside her and undergoing severe changes, that she should be deemed the most important person in this situation?

Your approach is that you think abortion should always be illegal, except in life threatening situations. That's not pragmatism, that's extremism.

Again, your lack of nuance is startling. I have said several times the issue is complex.

The further developed, and closer to human life a fetus is, the greater its rights and protections should be. Choosing any point is going to be a arbitrary but 24 weeks seems a genuinely sensible and pragmatic balance between the rights and wishes of the mother, and the rights of the fetus. That obviously isn't showing '0 concern for the fetus'. The woman should be given a long time to decide if she wishes to have the child.

Again, it's not 'live and let live'. That's an astonishingly simplistic and ignorant take on a highly complex issue. It makes it sound like the fetus is growing in a lab, rather than inside another human being. Surely, since the woman is going to be carrying a baby, letting it live and grow inside her and undergoing severe changes, that she should be deemed the most important person in this situation?

Your approach is that you think abortion should always be illegal, except in life threatening situations. That's not pragmatism, that's extremism.

... and they invoke every stupid argument of the 'pro-life' movement.

The 24 weeks is an arbitrary point, one could make the same arguments for any time period given that the only absolute binary is the point of conception. If someone were to say that 20 weeks should be the cut off would that make them an extremist? Or 22 weeks?

I accept its an arbitrary point and have said so a number of times. That's because the fundamental question of when life begins is as much a philosophical question as a scientific one.

Our legal system is full of arbitrary points. Being able to buy alcoholic drinks or vote at 18 is an arbitrary point. Being able to drive at 17 is arbitrary etc. But that's the nature of these issues where there is no obvious answer.

These are both way less arbitrary; a person is legally allowed to drink alcohol before they're eighteen, in order to add some sense to the law and allow parents to exercise judgement on when their child is prepared to deal with the consequences of alcohol. Driving is not as arbitrary as the law isn't "all 17+ year olds can drive" the law has further requirements in order to be satisfied a person can drive. There's no reason why 24 weeks is a sensible line to draw today with regard to abortion.

Any point is going to be arbitrary to a degree. But my point is that there needs to be a reasonable and pragmatic balance between the rights and autonomy of the woman and that of the embryo/ fetus. I think 24 weeks is a reasonable balance that respects both.

So you think it's reasonable to abort a foetus that can potentially survive outside of the womb?

It would be extremist to say that abortions should never be allowed, or that they should be allowed right up to the day before the birth. Because neither position reflects the immensely complex nature of the issue.

You keep talking about how abortion is so complex and so nuanced yet you don't seem too willing to actual engage in any nuance or complexity.

What do you mean growing rights? Either it has a right to live or it doesn't. There is no more basic right than that. Choosing a point is arbitrary, hence why you start with conception.

From this point forth, there is a separate, individual, aging, growing and developing human being inside the mother. To kill it is to deny human life. How is 24 balancing the rights of the fetus? How is killing a fetus at 9-24 weeks a consideration of its rights? The moment you talk about killing a fetus, showing 0 concern is exactly what it is. Do you care about all the woman have trauma over the actual abortion? Who suffer guilt and torment? Are you not glad you yourself were not aborted as a fetus? Do you have any empathy at all for human life?

No, extremism would be to say condoms should be illegal. Again, we are both anti-abortion, just to different extents. By allowing abortion up to 24 weeks you condemn thousands of preborn humans to die.

Let the mother live, let the preborn human being live. Support the mother through her pregnancy, support her through her motherhood, if she keeps it. Support the preborn human by protecting its life, support the child through schooling and state institutions. Live and let live.

Despite your lack of willingness to engage I have replied again

No. Give the mother plenty of time to decide if she wants to go through with such a life changing and imapctful decision. Show respect to thr fact that its her body and its her making the sacrifices, not you.