Alabama votes no more abortion!

  • Thread starter Thread starter claudine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

claudine

Guest
Headlines of all the major european newspapers here this morning are about Alabama and its vote against all abortion.

I hope this is the beginning of the turning away from the slaughter of the unborn.

The numbers of unborn children killed has gotten so high its abominable.

I was in the Republic of Ireland when the first government actions were being taken to provide abortions in Ireland. Doctors and nurses were the first to protest there. They are still having to participate in legislation to deny abortions and refuse to refer woment to doctors who would perform them.

What does your state or country rule on abortion?

Anyone have statistics about the unborn country by country or states?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is unfortunate. Hopefully it’s something that’s overturned reasonably soon.
 
Claudine, your mention that it was news all over Europe prompted me to look at Le Figaro to see what they are saying.

First, the comments are much more civilized than ours.

Second, I was surprised to see how many comments were pro-life!!!

And, just like Polack jokes of old (I guess they are politically incorrect now?), the French are saying very similar things to what we say, including mentioning The Handmaid’s Tale and Sharia law.
 
Last edited:
It looks like some want to test the new makeup of the SCOTUS to see if they can finally get Roe v. Wade overturned. It seems inevitable that this will be challenged and make it to the Supreme Court eventually.
 
claudine said:
Anyone have statistics about the unborn country by country or states?
Click to expand...
Wiki can give you that information (at least where they count them) but in the states abortion rates have been dropping since the mid-80’s. Teen pregnancies especially.
 
Last edited:
I read until this: Six in 10 Catholic voters believe abortion can be a moral choice, according to Catholics for Choice, a pro-choice organization of faith.

It’s astounding how much wrongheadedness can be packed into one sentence.
 
Unfortunately the statistics are probably true. Catholics as a group do not differ in any meaningful way from the rest of the population on virtually any question, including abortion. If they did, we’d have a lot of pro-life legislation passing in the NE and California.

It is the Bible Belt Protestant states and portions of the Midwest leading this charge.

The most Catholic areas of this country are the most heavily in favor of abortion, it seems.
 
As I understand it the idea behind Alabama and Georgia’s laws is to take aim at the “personhood” qualification in the Roe decision. Part of Roe says that if an unborn child is considered a legal person, the case for abortion collapses. Alabama and Georgia have granted legal personhood to unborn children, expanding civil liberties as states are permitted to do under the Constitution. So they are challenging the court to acknowledge the personhood of unborn children, and not attacking the edges of the decision, such as shrinking what “undue burden” covers.
 
Annie said:
I read until this: Six in 10 Catholic voters believe abortion can be a moral choice, according to Catholics for Choice, a pro-choice organization of faith.

It’s astounding how much wrongheadedness can be packed into one sentence.
Click to expand...
I was listening to an interview that tangentially mentioned B.N. Nathanson’s book. Nathanson was an ob/gyn, and a founder of NARAL 1969, and started off as its medical advisor. In 1970, he saw his first ultrasound, and he struggled for the next decade or so to abandon the cause he had worked so hard to promote. (He ran a Manhattan clinic from 1970-1972 that performed 60,000 abortions. He became chief of obstretical services 1972-1978 at St Luke’s Hospital, where he performed another 5,000 himself, and supervised another 10,000 performed by residents.)

He passed away in 2011, after having basically spent his entire life from 1978/79-2011 to undo the damage he had caused.

Anyhow, in his book, he was talking about how the marketing team for NARAL was trying to get voters behind their cause. At the time, perhaps only half of one percent were actually for abortion on demand, although he admitted to making up some random 60% number at the time for propaganda purposes.

They had a three-pronged approach. #1 was, whenever there was bad news about a woman who suffered, to tie it to politicians. Whether it was “this woman died from an illegal abortion” or whatever bad news story it was, they blamed the politicians for not supporting abortion.

The second prong was, whenever a politician came over to their side, they supported him 110%.

The third prong was, to phrase things in terms of choice. That was the way they could get Catholic voters to support a pro-abortion candidate. “I would never choose that myself, but it might be right for someone else…” or “I’m personally against it, but I don’t want to presume to tell someone else what they can do themselves.”

It was a very, very, very effective marketing campaign.
 
Last edited:
Regular_Atheist said:
This is unfortunate. Hopefully it’s something that’s overturned reasonably soon.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you live in Alabama? Shouldn’t a state have some rights to legislate as well?

And that’s all Roe v Wade did, was work it on a more federal level. Before, states regulated it, if NY or California, Alabama, Florida want to legislate their own laws, that is how the Constitution works.
 
I think “Hopefully” is not the word for this sentence, as your words exude heavy hopelessness for humankind.
 
I think it’s important to note, though I’m sure no news outlet will report upon it, that both the bill’s sponsor and the governor who signed it into law are women. This, of course, goes against the narrative that “reproductive rights are women’s rights” and that “only crusty old white men want to ban abortions.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top