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

TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Rakas21)
While the sentencing for this crime is much too severe i support the Alabama State Congress in their attempt to restrict abortion which each year contributes negatively to both self responsibility and demographic change.
Show me this negative impact abortion has.

You can’t just say it and expect I’ll think it’s true.
0
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by @opsewio)
Why? This is America we are talking about. The land of the retards.


i think because of public opinion, the majority would be against it. boycotts and protests would most likely prevent it. if you want to criminalise something that is widely accepted, you can't just start off by proposing a life sentence in prison, you'd have to do baby steps. like when abortion was originally legalised,i think they didn't just demand for it to be legal for any woman for any reason at any stage to kill her baby, first they wanted contraception to be legal, then legal to kill them within the first x number of weeks for certain cases, which has increased over the years. also you have to change public opinion. its all about baby steps and public opinion
Last edited by Leviathan1611; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
Show me this negative impact abortion has.

You can’t just say it and expect I’ll think it’s true.
Abortion disproportionately occurs among native women (native being white women) and currently allows more or less for a free for all which means that the majority of abortions are of likely healthy children. By aborting healthy native children you by definition over time make the country less ethnically and culturally similar relative to what it would otherwise have been.

In the UK for example there are around 200,000 abortions each year. Even assuming that only half of those would have been healthy, productive taxpayers (statistically it is likely more would have) then at 100,000 native children you are making the country around 0.13% less British than it would otherwise have been each year at a time of high non-white, christian/atheist immigration. Not much in an individual year but that is 1%+ per decade and 10%+ per century.

And that is before we consider the economic arguments supporting increased population growth. Namely that the larger the labour force, the larger the ouptut (GDP), the larger the tax revenues (pensions ect..).

..

I used to support abortion in my naive younger days but the truth is that beyond liberal arguments, the hard economic and cultural arguments are solidly against the majority of abortion.
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
(Original post by opsewio)
Why? This is America we are talking about. The land of the retards.


i think because of public opinion, the majority would be against it. boycotts and protests would most likely prevent it. if you want to criminalise something that is widely accepted, you can't just start off by proposing a life sentence in prison, you'd have to do baby steps. like when abortion was originally legalised,i think they didn't just demand for it to be legal for any woman for any reason at any stage to kill her baby, first they wanted contraception to be legal, then legal to kill them within the first x number of weeks for certain cases, which has increased over the years. also you have to change public opinion. its all about baby steps and public opinion
I’ll post some history of this topic so avoid anyone making guesses, you are right about some parts, I’d like to clarify some of the history, a lot of people here seem to not know and think guessing in a debate is the way to go.

In 1936 The Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA) was established; its aim was to campaign for the legalisation of abortion.

In 1938, Dr. Alex Bourne was acquitted of having performed an illegal abortion. This set a case-law precedent.

Two years later, in a landmark case, Dr. Alex Bourne was acquitted of having performed an illegal abortion. He believed that abortion should be legal in exceptional circumstances and, most courageously, admitted having performed an abortion for a gang-raped 14-year-old who was suicidal. He argued that the law did permit abortion before 28 weeks and did allow abortion when a woman’s mental or physical health was in danger. The court agreed that this was a life-threatening situation and acquitted Dr Bourne. As a result some women were able to get a safe abortion. However, uncertainty remained as a psychiatrist’s approval was needed. It was usually only educated and/or relatively wealthy women who had the resources to find, and pay for, a compliant psychiatrist.

Long story short, it was put into works to clarify if a woman could have an abortion if she was in danger however WW2 put these findings on a temporary halt.

In the 50s to early 60s the reform grew to legalise abortion, you are right about contraceptives being more available due to the growth of the women’s movement.

1967: The Abortion Act (sponsored by David Steel, MP) became law, legalising abortion under certain conditions; it came into effect on 27 April 1968.

Since its passage in 1967 the Abortion Act has been unsuccessfully challenged several times by anti-choice (“pro-life”) organisations which aim to restrict access to abortion.
0
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
I’ll post some history of this topic so avoid anyone making guesses, you are right about some parts, I’d like to clarify some of the history, a lot of people here seem to not know and think guessing in a debate is the way to go.

In 1936 The Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA) was established; its aim was to campaign for the legalisation of abortion.

In 1938, Dr. Alex Bourne was acquitted of having performed an illegal abortion. This set a case-law precedent.

Two years later, in a landmark case, Dr. Alex Bourne was acquitted of having performed an illegal abortion. He believed that abortion should be legal in exceptional circumstances and, most courageously, admitted having performed an abortion for a gang-raped 14-year-old who was suicidal. He argued that the law did permit abortion before 28 weeks and did allow abortion when a woman’s mental or physical health was in danger. The court agreed that this was a life-threatening situation and acquitted Dr Bourne. As a result some women were able to get a safe abortion. However, uncertainty remained as a psychiatrist’s approval was needed. It was usually only educated and/or relatively wealthy women who had the resources to find, and pay for, a compliant psychiatrist.

Long story short, it was put into works to clarify if a woman could have an abortion if she was in danger however WW2 put these findings on a temporary halt.

In the 50s to early 60s the reform grew to legalise abortion, you are right about contraceptives being more available due to the growth of the women’s movement.

1967: The Abortion Act (sponsored by David Steel, MP) became law, legalising abortion under certain conditions; it came into effect on 27 April 1968.

Since its passage in 1967 the Abortion Act has been unsuccessfully challenged several times by anti-choice (“pro-life”) organisations which aim to restrict access to abortion.
thanks for clarifying
1
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Rakas21)
Abortion disproportionately occurs among native women (native being white women) and currently allows more or less for a free for all which means that the majority of abortions are of likely healthy children. By aborting healthy native children you by definition over time make the country less ethnically and culturally similar relative to what it would otherwise have been.
So what?

(Original post by Rakas21)
In the UK for example there are around 200,000 abortions each year. Even assuming that only half of those would have been healthy, productive taxpayers (statistically it is likely more would have) then at 100,000 native children you are making the country around 0.13% less British than it would otherwise have been each year at a time of high non-white, christian/atheist immigration. Not much in an individual year but that is 1%+ per decade and 10%+ per century.
Again I repeat, so what?

(Original post by Rakas21)
And that is before we consider the economic arguments supporting increased population growth. Namely that the larger the labour force, the larger the ouptut (GDP), the larger the tax revenues (pensions ect..).

..

I used to support abortion in my naive younger days but the truth is that beyond liberal arguments, the hard economic and cultural arguments are solidly against the majority of abortion.
You claims about economic strength are weak, our country wouldn’t be much differently either way, you can’t think about our economy over the health of our population, you would be wise to stop adding words such as ‘hard’ to describe your arguments, they’re not, you still seem quite naive.
1
reply
AJ126
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
Trying to simplify a philosophical question as to when life begins in such a way is utterly stupid.
Not really.Its stupid to call abortion the murder of babies as has often been done,when it's clearly not the same thing.I was merely making an analogy.What I would call stupid is seeking answers from a 2000 year old book written by a tribe of desert dwellers.
Last edited by AJ126; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
BenK64
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Just my opinion)
If it makes you feel any better other states are planning to allow abortion up to 40 weeks, in fact the day of birth.
While it will undoubtedly make it more difficult to abort a baby. it will be available in other States.
That's horrible
0
reply
The Champion.m4a
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
Abortion is legal because some people think that it is not a life, since it is a life it is murder and therefore should be against the law.
If it is not currently illegal, it is not unlawful. If it is not unlawful, it is not murder. You went to a dictionary to support yourself, but you at the same time ignored the actual definition of it.

Soldiers killing the enemy in a war is not murder, because the killing of a life is lawful.

Someone killing another as self defense is not murder, because the killing of a life is lawful.

If the death penalty is legal, the executioner killing a life is not murder, because the killing of a life is lawful.

Murder is a legal term and whether something is murder is based entirely on whether it's lawful, not whether something is a life. You can say abortion should be considered murdered, but if abortion is legal, you're just deluded to think you are right to call it murder at present. It isn't.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by BenK64)
That's horrible
Quite.
I'm pro choice but within limits.
I remember my dad saying the left will never be happy on abortion until they can do it until the 3rd trimester.
I scoffed and said he was being ridiculous. Little did I know he was vastly underestimating them.
Only a handful of states but it will undoubtedly spread.
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Quite.
I'm pro choice but within limits.
I remember my dad saying the left will never be happy on abortion until they can do it until the 3rd trimester.
I scoffed and said he was being ridiculous. Little did I know he was vastly underestimating them.
Only a handful of states but it will undoubtedly spread.
Source?
0
reply
AJ126
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by TheGoodStudent)
A step in the right direction... The direction of not murdering humans.
Hmm well why is it always the most backwards countries/states which criminalise it then? Control over reproductive rights is actually one of the biggest issues when it comes to lifting women out of poverty.
0
reply
Scrollery
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
wait they include incest but it is Alabama we speaking
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
good on them.


Spoiler:
Show
yea. get triggered. ngl though, 99 years is a pisstake. why propose something valid with such an outrageous amount of time :rolleyes:. they will have to turn it down because of the length of the sentence, even if they agree with anti-abortion. or they'd have to compromise and bring the sentence term way down to like 1 year which is nothing. :rolleyes:
Last edited by Bang Outta Order; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
good on them.


Spoiler:
Show
yea. get triggered. ngl though, 99 years is a pisstake. why propose something valid with such an outrageous amount of time :rolleyes:. they will have to turn it down because of the length of the sentence, even if they agree with anti-abortion. or they'd have to compromise and bring the sentence term way down to like 1 year which is nothing. :rolleyes:
Bang outta order that.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
Seems like you're either an idiot or you're a troll.

1. Not unlawful
2. Not killing
3. One is human, one isn't.
you are being so obnoxious
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Rakas21)
While the sentencing for this crime is much too severe i support the Alabama State Congress in their attempt to restrict abortion which each year contributes negatively to both self responsibility and demographic change.
I said the same thing, that I support it but that I know the sentencing will be the determining factor of its passing or not, and it seems it was done like that intentionally, to perhaps patronise or mock pressure from other state politicians to pass an anti-abortion law: Make an absurd offer so they turn it down. Or, in pawning and gambling, you start off high so you can compromise on still making it happen but with something lower. If I wanna sell a tv monitor for 300 quid, i start at 600 from the beginning for my going price. the buyer will say..way too high..we keep going down and meet at 300, the goal always works.
Last edited by Bang Outta Order; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
Bang outta order that.
bang outta order what? the 99 years, or me agreeing with it? lol as far as the 99 years, it's like what I notice with people sent to death. right away I know after trial it will be deduced to a life sentence, as if the charge starts off as a life sentence, it can be reduced to a few years. if you want someone in prison for sure, you start off with the harshest punishment so that the only compromise is ..the next harshest punishment aka life s with this, they might be doing this as a piss take 99 years-or they're like...let's bring it down to 20 years. that's still a bloody long time but a more realistic practical agreeable term. at that angle, it could be very likely someone in Alabama does a long ass time for abortion
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
you are being so obnoxious
You have to remember you are talking to people who not just accept but praise the murder of innocent humans.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
You have to remember you are talking to people who not just accept but praise the murder of innocent humans.
true. can't reason with the unreasonable.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (452)
37.95%
No - but I will (89)
7.47%
No - I don't want to (83)
6.97%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (567)
47.61%

Watched Threads

View All