Monday, June 10, 2019

Alabama: America's religious fanatic headquarters


Today's post is a sequel to yesterday's more howler FUBAR-ing from the great red state of Alabama, which I posted on my Facebook timeline and attracted a somewhat odd comment, which led to further actually interesting conversation with that person:



Sloan Bashinsky
June 10,  2019
I have a J.D. and and LLM in Taxation from the Alabama School of Law. I think the law school made a huge mistake agreeing to change its name to Culverhouse, and an even bigger mistake, if it did not publicly denounce the new abortion law and the Alabama legislature and governor. I think no person not wishing to live and practice law in Alabama apply to the Alabama School of Law and later wear that pariah state's badge in another state. Imagine an Alabama law graduate competing with a Tennessee law graduate, for example, for a job with a social activism law firm or organization. As for Culverhouse, perhaps he has not heard of, "It is more blessed to give than to receive?" But, I think his advice for women, especially, to avoid the Alabama School of Law, bears serious consideration.
Comments
  • Bob Modesitt Mid 1800's they said the same thing about those that disagreed with the Dred Scott ruling.

    • Sloan Bashinsky what same thing did they today which was same thing they said about this below?

      Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their 
      two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott case". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal and their laws said that slaveholders gave up their rights to slaves if they stayed for an extended period.

      In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, as the court ruled this to have been unconstitutional, as it would "improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property".

      While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage, deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern states, and hastened the eventual explosion of their differences into the American Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments—nullified the decision.

      The Scotts were manumitted by a private arrangement in May 1857. Dred Scott died of tuberculosis a few months later.


    • Bob Modesitt Sloan Bashinsky with respect, and NOT a constitutional lawyer, but the Roe v Wade decision was based on Driswold v Connecticut and was a right to privacy issue. This was in reference to use of premarital measures and because the man and woman agreed to this the Government has no influence in their decision. 

      This is correct, but when they impose the right to privacy issue here they superseded the rights of the baby and the rights of the father.

      So it boils down to when life begins. When there are laws on the books prohibiting destruction of birds that are on the "extinction" list and by destroying the eggs they terminate the life of the bird then it's the same thing that by terminating a fetus that this is terminating a life, a human life.

      And when baby parts are harvested after abortions and fetal tissue is used for healing unhealthy adults then what precisely is inside a woman?

      With the different ways to prevent pregnancies today it is simple to NOT create an unwanted life. By PROPER planning then the mantra of baby mama's and baby daddies can be GREATLY reduced and abortions can be a thing of the past. This argument too.

      My point in what I said was this discussion will continue and I consider the Dred Scott ruling to be 100% wrong and this did not stop the fight to make Black's fully accepted as free people. I suggest this fight to stop the killing of defenseless babies to be on the same level of importance. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about ALL the urban babies that are killed.

    • Sloan Bashinsky Well, I agree the Dred Scott decision was 100 percent wrong. I have a girlfriend, whose conservative Christian parents and grandparents forced her to have an abortion in her twenties, because the father was black. She still carries that wound in her soul.

      That aside, the new Alabama abortion law bans abortions of pregnancies caused by rape or incest, which i think is 100-percent wrong. 

      I also think the Alabama law school was 100- percent wrong to agree to change its name because a rich liberal, who is not a lawyer and lives in Florida, but his father attended the law school, gave the school a lot of money. I think a law school that did that doesn't have enough common sense, or judgment, to be training future lawyers.

      I also think the law school was 100 percent wrong for not denouncing the new abortion law, because it does not allow abortion for pregnancies caused by rape and incest. 

      As for when babies are being killed, to use your crusade's lingo. I found myself thinking the other day about when a fetus becomes a baby? My first wife and I lost a child 7 weeks old to sudden infant death syndrome. We still have not recovered from that, over 60 years later. That was a baby. 

      My second wife had 2 early-term abortions, because birth control was not working and I was not prepared emotionally to have another child and it was all I could do to be father to two children by my first wife. The abortions were rough on my second wife, but did not seem nearly as rough on her as what my first wife suffered after suddenly losing a baby she was still nursing. I had a vasectomy to prevent my second wife and I from having any more pregnancies. The vasectomy seemed to adversely affect her a lot more than the two abortions I had insisted she have. 

      I think there has to be a middle ground. I think 3 months is a good cut off point for allowing abortions without any restrictions. After that, abortions should be allowed if the mother's life is at risk, or the fetus is defective. 

      And, what about pregnant women, whose husbands up and leave them in a lurch? Are you willing to adopt and raise and love those unborn babies? If not, I think you have no standing to object to those mothers having abortions.

      And, what about pregnant mothers, who are addicts. Imagine what those fetuses go through in the womb, and after being born? Imagine them living with being born addicts the rest of their lives? Are you willing to adopt and raise those babies? If not, you have no standing to object to addict mothers being allowed to have abortions. In fact, I wonder if it should not be required that addict mothers have abortions.
    • Bob Modesitt ...the new Alabama abortion law bans abortions of pregnancies caused by rape or incest, which i think it 100-percent wrong. - Agree with you here.

      ....after the philanthropist called on students to boycott the school over the state’s severe abortion b
      an, local media reported Friday. - Here no. You have a person donating to an institution having a building named after him and then he's encouraging people to boycott the school, a line's been crossed.

      ....I also think the law school was 100 percent wrong for not denouncing the new abortion law, because it does not allow abortion for pregnancies caused by rape and incest. - As above, there are times this needs to be reassessed. But IS it the Law School's responsibility to object?

      Your other discussions and points are completely valid. I believe that both parties are culpable and should have responsibility for the children. I am truly sorry for your wife's losses I could not imagine going through this. There IS a middle ground and honestly, overseas and THEIR solution is pretty hard core.
    • Sloan Bashinsky It's the state law school. If it does not take a position on a clearly egregious law passed by the state legislature and governor, then what kind of law school is it? That it did not take a position against that egregious law looks to me why the donor went berserk. As would I, had I been the donor. However, already the donor, not a lawyer, was trying to dictate how the law school should operate, which was not his business, in my opinion. I read online where he was quoted as saying the law school made the refund only after he slammed the school for what he thought was it being in agreement with the new abortion law. But for that, he seemed to think, the law school would not have made the refund, and, I suppose, would have kept calling itself the Culverhouse School of Law, which never should have happened.

    • Bob Modesitt Understand your point, we're in REALLY new territory now.

      But my point is when a person says to boycott a school then the school will typically separate themselves from that person. Since he'd donated MILLIONS of dollars and had a building named after him, in reality what other choice did they have?

      PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, I mean nothing by this, this action is a political football and seeing how the CNN's, MSNBC's and Foxnews's of the world have to cater to their viewership and get us all amped up.

      I see your point and am not arguing with you, it's just a difficult circumstance that's been created.

    • Sloan Bashinsky Bob Modesitt Created by religious fanatics, in this case.

  • Bob Modesitt There are many religious people that want this but many that aren't either.

    It's a belief as to when life begins. And my hope is people will do all they can to eliminate the unwanted pregnancies. Have seen where condoms work 97% of the time and, in consensual sex, to avoid times thought to be fertile will only help to eliminate pregnancies. Combine the two methods it would ALMOST eliminate these unwanted pregnancies. Not ALL the time but considering there are SO many abortions that come from this to eliminate these is the key.

    https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

    This article statistically list why women receive abortions.

    For rape, <0.5% of the total abortions, 879,000 occur. Using the high number this is, at most, 4,400. There is not a number for incest but would have believe this too is lower. The chart, as they have it, lists like this:

    Percentage Reason
    <0.5% Victim of rape
    3% Fetal health problems
    4% Physical health problems
    4% Would interfere with education or career
    7% Not mature enough to raise a child
    8% Don't want to be a single mother
    19% Done having children
    23% Can't afford a baby
    25% Not ready for a child
    6% Other

    To put the numbers to these percentages, health issues total 6,157,395, for other reasons, 6,148,605 and convenience, 75,594,000. The side I'm on want to limit this last number greatly. If this were to be eliminated or be reduced then this argument would no longer be necessary. But when you have young women doing it with men and not caring about the consequences of this act.

    THIS is our problem.
    U.S. Abortion Statistics
    ABORT73.COM
    U.S. Abortion Statistics
    U.S. Abortion Statistics

  • Sloan Bashinsky No matter how you spin it, Bob, this particular case was spawned by religious fanatics, and Alabama is their national headquarters.

sloanbashinsky@yahoo.com

2 comments:

  1. As a physician who has performed abortions, legally, shortly after Roe v. Wade was interpreted as Carte Blanche in Federally Funded Hospitals, such as the Naval Hospital at which I was stationed. At that time, as a young recently graduated M.D. I was very 'open-minded about it. Now I am even MORE open minded about it. I believe abortion should not be illegal, especially at the Federal Level, but neither do I think they should be performed without intense scrutiny of each case. (That does not meet the one-size-fits-all of todays "managed care" in modern Medicine.) Alabama should be ashamed of itself to have resorted to sheer chickanery with it's 'heartbeat detection'line of limitation.Yet I believe it IS for Alabama to do so. It is for the SCOTUS to determine its Constitutionality. Would that the Alabama Supreme Justices would do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your input, Doc. When I read it the second time, I thought it would make sense for the Republicans, en masse, to agree with you, given they against welfare babies, and free access to abortion by poor pregnant women would fit hand in glove with reducing welfare babies. My ever irreverent buddy Sancho Panza wrote yesterday, that his solution would be to castrate the entire human race. I don't see the Republicans, nor the Democrats, getting in lockstep with that. As for what the U.S. and Alabama Supreme Courts might do, I have no clue.

      Delete