re: The new Alabama abortion law, like it or no?

All of this is political fodder used to keep the sheep bickering amongst themselves while the politicians continue to grandstand and keep all the SJW's pissed off along with the conservatives. Key jingling to keep everyone distracted while they do nothing and collect a huge salary for doing nothing except prepare for re-election.

Digging around on several websites and taking a median average of statistics, here are some ball park figures.

In 2015, there were approximately 640,000 Abortions performed in America, of those, 32,000 were performed due to incest/rape. Approximately 5%.

So roughly 95% of all abortions are a convenience issue by a woman too lazy to retain free birth control which is readily available.

Another interesting statistic I read was the fact that a large majority of women 60-70% (varies by website) that are a victim of rape/incest would keep their baby if they had support from family or knew how to approach the situation. (most of those victims are underage and too scared).

I agree the option for abortion for rape/incest should be the woman's right.

From a biblical stand point, life begins at conception. Leviticus 17:11 states that life is in the blood.

quote:

---

It's not supposed to hold up, dumbass. It's a direct response to states that recently passed laws to allow abortion at birth.

It's only purpose is to force a legal challenge.

---

You understand that's precisely why it is terrible in it's current form, right?

The SCOTUS is a very slow moving body that places a great deal of value in past precedent - and that's a VERY good thing. Whether we agree with their decisions or not, the fact that you can generally rely on precedent and aren't subject to the mood of the day is what separates our system from that of a banana republic.

Roe was an outlier in that it was a big swing. No less than Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who has said she supports abortion rights fully) has said that Roe probably went too far too fast. It isn't unreasonable to think that the court might be willing to consider cases that dial back that ruling somewhat now that we've got technology that lets up see into the womb, treat unborn babies, and premature babies can survive at much earlier birth times than they could in 1973.

What is unreasonable is to think that the court will pull a Dallas 1986 and act like it all never happened - and that's what the Alabama law attempts to do. The 11th Circuit will uphold whatever middle district federal judge strikes it down and the SCOTUS will hopefully decline to hear the case. The absolute worst thing for those of us who abhor abortion would be for this case to make the SCOTUS because they'll uphold the circuit and every single case that upholds a precedent makes it harder to reverse that precedent.

Now with that aside, the law is bad for a couple more reasons.

First is the cost of the case. There was no need to pass this law. Other states already passed laws and thus are ahead of Alabama in the legal process. Their laws also have a better chance to be upheld. We're going to spend a lot of money fighting this case and then the court will rule on one of the other cases first - meaning all that money was spent for nothing at all no matter which way the court rules. A couple of posters have said it will be a few million spread out over a few years, which is true but there are other considerations. There are fewer than 10 attorneys at the AGs office that are tasked with litigating constitutional issues which include everything from prisoner lawsuits and voter cases like redistricting to things like this case. They're very busy and this just added greatly to the load meaning that not only will you have to hire experts and outside council for this case, they'll have to do it for other cases too so indirectly this case will cost millions on top of the direct costs.

The second problem is the lack of a rape and incest clause. More than anything else, that's what will get it tossed. Abortion is homicide, pure and simple. It is a human life being taken by another human - but not all homicides are crimes. If someone is breaking into my house, I've got the legal right to use deadly force against them. I don't have to kill them, but I've got the legal right to do it. Rape and incest cases fit the same situation. The baby didn't commit the crime, but they're a product of the crime. I'm not sure God will consider taking that life to be justified, but to be honest, I'm not totally convinced he would view me shooting the burglar favorably either but that's not the issue. We (at least in Alabama) tell people crime victims have a right to use deadly force to stop an assault against us or our property and rape and incest most definitely fit that situation.

It's a horrible law.

And frick the politicians in Alabama for handing the Democrats an issue they can hang their hats on. Idiots.

quote:

---

From a biblical stand point, life begins at conception. Leviticus 17:11 states that life is in the blood.

---

Bull.

I'm a Christian and have read and studied the bible for over 3 decades. The Bible does not reference life beginning at conception in any way, shape, or form.

quote:

---

Leviticus 17:11 King James Version (KJV)

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

---

The above scripture is part of God's explanation of the Old Testament altar required to be built in order to pray and be forgiven of sins, as a sacrifice of a life was required, i.e. blood. Jesus, representing the new agreement between Man and God, became the last and ultimate sacrifice. At no point in this scripture is referenced anything related to sperm, eggs, sex, conception, or creating a new life through reproduction. This kind of mis-applied scripture is the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity.

Another scripture that folks love to quote regarding abortions is Jeremiah 1:5 New International Version "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." This also references nothing in regards to life or reproduction, and as a matter of fact, only applies to one man - not all of mankind. And in reality, it's just a statement about the fact that this one man's steps were ordered by God. It is not insinuating that we "existed" before we were alive. God simply exists outside of the construct of Time.

There is no Biblical justification for the notion that life begins at conception. You can choose to believe that it begins at that point, fine. But the Bible never references it in any way.

Scientifically, I could easily argue that life begins before conception, as sperm are swimming and such, doing life-like things, but are simply haploid (half the genetic code of a full human). I could also argue that life begins a month after conception, when the cells of the blastocyst specialize into a fetus (first being-like appearance in the womb).



Personally, I know that the Bible never references the beginning of physical life, and I believe the most logical landmark to base the beginning of human life to be about 4 weeks after conception. In my opinion, conception just marks the transformation of the cells from haploid (half the number of chrmosomes) to diploid (full complement of chromosomes).

But the main point is that if you want to choose conception as your landmark for the beginning of physical life, so be it. That as fine a land mark as any. BUT THE BIBLE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM JUSTIFIES THAT LANDMARK, AND ANY INSINUATION THAT IT DOES IS AN INSULT TO THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF.

And the above explanation is fact whether a person is for or against abortion. In reality, this issue (abortion) is just one of many that the 2-party Dictatorship of the United States Federal government uses to divide the population into halves, thereby ensuring their own continued existence. Any American getting mad at another American over this issue is just a blind, idiot sheep. Create whatever laws you want, but don't vote based on stupid shite issues like this. And remember, YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY, SO DON'T TRY TO.

quote:

---

From a biblical stand point, life begins at conception. Leviticus 17:11 states that life is in the blood.

---

Additionally, even if you still want to cling to this scripture regarding abortion, it states 'life is in the blood". The embryo will not have any form of blood cell development until the 17th or 18th day after fertilization/conception. And so, using your interpretation of Leviticus, life begins 2.5 weeks after conception.

quote:

---

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

---

I find the argument that that is in reference to abortion specious, at best.

And if you really want to get fun with Scripture, do you remember the scripture where God says thay during intercourse, husband and wife become "one flesh', due to his penis being inside her vagina, making one being essentially? Well, based on that I could easily argue that as long as the fetus is inside the woman, it's part of the 'one flesh' that is the woman, and does not seperate into an independent being, i.e. life form, until physical birth and the umbilical cord is severed.

You see, if you misquote scripture and take it out of context, you can justify anything.

quote:

---

I hear ya. I struggle with that question as well. I'm fairly pro-choice, but also think the old British Common Law had it mostly right. Abortion was legal up until the quickening - when the mother could feel the fetus's movements. One big problem with that is that moment is different for every woman. The general timeline for that is 2-3 months, so I think abortions after the first trimester should be reserved for extreme cases where there are concerns over the mother's health or the viability of the baby outside the womb.

---

Nice post. One could also use the beginning of consciousness, which happens around the 6th month with the development of the cortex of the brain. That's a bit late for many, but it goes to show the complexity of contextually defining murder (immoral abortion): a human killing another human for non-justifiable reasons. If it's justifiable, it's not murder. If it's not a human, it's not murder. And those definitions are subjective, to say the least.

But the notion that a benevolent Christian God wants raped women and victims of incest to carry those embryos to term is sickening and evil. But the Bible predicted that in the end times, they'd call evil good, and good evil. 'They' just might refer to some Christians.