International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   America transitions into Gilead (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336332)

Travis 11th May 2019 01:35 AM

America transitions into Gilead
 
With Georgia about set to give women who get abortions the death penalty, Ohio requiring ectopic pregnancies be saved...somehow and Alabama deciding rape isn't a problem it is the sluts that claim rape happened that is the problem...well I'd like to say that all the Bernie Bros who said back in 2016 that it was okay, nay a requirement, to vote Stein because women were safe can collectively all just go jump off a cliff. I said then that conservatives would never be satisfied until women were reduced to slaves for men's whims but I was just talking "nonsense" and yet here we now are.

Puppycow 11th May 2019 04:16 AM

Remember: although we get to vote for a new president every 4 years, a Supreme Court Justice could serve for 30 years or more. We don't get to change that in 4 years or 8. Who knows when we'll get a chance again. It could be a long time.

If the Supreme Court lets these laws stand, we won't be able to reverse that decision in 2020. It could only have been prevented in 2016. I'm just hoping that RBG makes it to the end of Trump's term. But even if she does, replacing her with another liberal won't change the balance.

Alabama Lawmakers Move To Outlaw Abortion In Challenge To Roe V. Wade

Quote:

In what would likely become the most restrictive abortion ban in the country, the Alabama House Tuesday passed a bill that would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, unless a woman's life is threatened. The legislation is part of a broader anti-abortion strategy to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to abortion.

Republican state Rep. Terri Collins of Decatur, Ala. defended her "Human Life Protection Act" during, at times, contentious debate on the House floor.

"This bill is focused on that baby that's in the womb that is a person," Collins said. "That baby, I believe, would choose life."
A Bill Banning Most Abortions Becomes Law In Ohio

Quote:

The six-week abortion ban known as the "heartbeat bill" is now law in Ohio. That makes Ohio the sixth state in the nation to attempt to outlaw abortions at the point a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Gov. Mike DeWine signed the bill Thursday afternoon, just one day after it passed the Republican-led General Assembly. The law is slated to take effect in 90 days, unless blocked by a federal judge.

Now known as the "Human Rights Protection Act," SB 23 outlaws abortions as early as five or six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they're pregnant. It is one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

The bill does include an exception to save the life of the woman, but no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
We will soon get to see exactly where Gorsuch, Kavanauh and Roberts stand on overturning Roe and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Hopefully before 2020. But if there's already 5 votes to overturn Roe, it may already be too late (until perhaps decades in the future).

shemp 11th May 2019 09:59 AM

I just want to say that I agree with Travis on this, but instead of a quick death jumping off a cliff, they should die in a dumpster fire.

phiwum 11th May 2019 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis (Post 12691913)
With Georgia about set to give women who get abortions the death penalty,

This article by the Post says that at least one expert does not think the Georgia bill could be used to prosecute women at all.

Quote:

Ohio requiring ectopic pregnancies be saved...somehow and Alabama deciding rape isn't a problem it is the sluts that claim rape happened that is the problem...
Your italicized bit is interesting. Did any Alabama legislators make an argument to that effect? (And especially did anyone say that rape isn't a problem?)

Frankly, I think that a consistent pro-life position would not include any rape exception. If abortion is wrong because the fetus has a right to life and such a right outweighs a woman's right to bodily self-determination, then what does it matter that the fetus is a product of rape? The fetus is not the rapist. The only reason pro-lifers carve out a rape exception is because it is politically wise to do so. Most people are uncomfortable, for obvious reasons, telling a rape victim she must carry the product of rape until birth. But this is just a spineless exception, if one genuinely believes that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.

You do your case no good by exaggerating the positions of the other side (must be a name for that tactic). If you think their positions are unreasonable, why not state them as accurately as possible? Is the majority of the Alabama legislature genuinely claiming rape isn't a problem? I should be startled to learn that (frankly, the bill itself is startling enough). But if there is no such discussion being had, I won't be startled at all, because you repeatedly misrepresent conservative positions.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis (Post 12691913)
With Georgia about set to give women who get abortions the death penalty, Ohio requiring ectopic pregnancies be saved...somehow and Alabama deciding rape isn't a problem it is the sluts that claim rape happened that is the problem...well I'd like to say that all the Bernie Bros who said back in 2016 that it was okay, nay a requirement, to vote Stein because women were safe can collectively all just go jump off a cliff. I said then that conservatives would never be satisfied until women were reduced to slaves for men's whims but I was just talking "nonsense" and yet here we now are.

Since when is it a women's issue to be allowed to commit murder without consequence?

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 12692194)
I just want to say that I agree with Travis on this, but instead of a quick death jumping off a cliff, they should die in a dumpster fire.

What they'll have is their daughters, sisters, nieces, etc. dying from botched back alley abortions just as they did pre-Roe v Wade. Abortions are not going to away for exactly the same reasons they have always existed.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692316)
Since when is it a women's issue to be allowed to commit murder without consequence?

Since when is it murder? Since when has it been scientifically and medically determined that a fetus has become a 'person'? A person's personal and/or religious belief is not enough reason to control another person's body.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692328)
Since when is it murder? Since when has it been scientifically and medically determined that a fetus has become a 'person'? A person's personal and/or religious belief is not enough reason to control another person's body.

Every law reflects someone's personal beliefs. There isnt a law that solely scientific and medical.

Meadmaker 11th May 2019 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis (Post 12691913)
With Georgia about set to give women who get abortions the death penalty, Ohio requiring ectopic pregnancies be saved...somehow and Alabama deciding rape isn't a problem it is the sluts that claim rape happened that is the problem...well I'd like to say that all the Bernie Bros who said back in 2016 that it was okay, nay a requirement, to vote Stein because women were safe can collectively all just go jump off a cliff. I said then that conservatives would never be satisfied until women were reduced to slaves for men's whims but I was just talking "nonsense" and yet here we now are.


I think you need a better map. We are "here", but where we are doesn't much resemble your description of it.



However, the unhyped version of events is correct. Abortion may end up illegal in some states soon, for the first time in almost fifty years, and that is, in fact, due to the election of Donald Trump. Still, I was pretty young in 1972, but I don't remember things being as you described. I'm not saying that the situation today is good, but I am saying your description of pending possible events does not match reality.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:08 PM

"This bill is focused on that baby that's in the womb that is a person," Collins said. "That baby, I believe, would choose life."

Even one with no brain?
And I don't give a rat's ass what you 'believe', Collins. Keep your "I believes' the hell away from MY body.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692329)
Every law reflects someone's personal beliefs. There isnt a law that solely scientific and medical.

And do those laws tell another person what medical procedures they can and cannot choose to have?

It's my personal belief that Bob the Coward should not be allowed to have a vasectomy because it is tantamount to killing all those unborn children he might father. That was the law at one time too.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692333)
And do those laws tell another person what medical procedures they can and cannot choose to have?

It's my personal belief that Bob the Coward should not be allowed to have a vasectomy because it is tantamount to killing all those unborn children he might father. That was the law at one time too.

Several do.

If you wanted to refute my point, you can try and find a law not based on a personal belief.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692336)
Several do.

If you wanted to refute my point, you can try and find a law not based on a personal belief.

"And do those laws tell another person what medical procedures they can and cannot choose to have?"



Such as?

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692340)
Such as?

Laws and regulations around the FDA
And the laws of the NHS.


Dr assisted suicide

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692344)
Laws and regulations around the FDA
And the laws of the NHS.

Umm...no. The FDA does not control what medical procedures a person can have. The NHS decides what medical procedures they will PAY for, not what procedures a person can legally have.

ETA: I don't think the NHS has laws, but rather regulations and policies.

Doctor assisted suicide is legal in some countries and some US states.

ETA: Assisted suicide is also concerned with a person who is legally a "person".

Quote:

In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the notion that a fetus is a person. In addition, no federal or state law bans abortion or presents any obstacle to reproductive health care on the basis that a fetus is a person.
https://rewire.news/legislative-trac...ic/personhood/

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692347)
Umm...no. The FDA does not control what medical procedures a person can have. The NHS decides what medical procedures they will PAY for, not what procedures a person can legally have.

ETA: I don't think the NHS has laws, but rather regulations and policies.

Doctor assisted suicide is legal in some countries and some US states.

This is the power to ban

Quote:

Section 516 of the FD&C Act authorizes the Agency to ban devices that present substantial deception or unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692347)
Umm...no. The FDA does not control what medical procedures a person can have. The NHS decides what medical procedures they will PAY for, not what procedures a person can legally have.

ETA: I don't think the NHS has laws, but rather regulations and policies.

Doctor assisted suicide is legal in some countries and some US states.

The criteria was can and cannot. That is a demonstration of "can"

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:39 PM

The FDA banned all transvaginal meshes this year.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692350)
This is the power to ban

Quote:

Section 516 of the FD&C Act authorizes the Agency to ban devices that present substantial deception or unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.
Sorry, Charlie. A 'device' is not a medical procedure. Try again.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692352)
The criteria was can and cannot. That is a demonstration of "can"

Nope. As I ETA's above:

Assisted suicide is also concerned with a person who is legally a "person".


Quote:

Quote:
In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the notion that a fetus is a person. In addition, no federal or state law bans abortion or presents any obstacle to reproductive health care on the basis that a fetus is a person.
https://rewire.news/legislative-trac...ic/personhood/

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692353)
The FDA banned all transvaginal meshes this year.

Again, a transvaginal mesh is a device, not a medical procedure. They banned the device. Do try and keep up.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692354)
Sorry, Charlie. A 'device' is not a medical procedure. Try again.

Yes, it is. A ban on all stents would be a ban on the installation of stents. See Minneapolis star Tribune vs commissar. An effort to tax paper to stop a newspaper counted as an effort to stop the paper directly.

phiwum 11th May 2019 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692328)
Since when is it murder? Since when has it been scientifically and medically determined that a fetus has become a 'person'? A person's personal and/or religious belief is not enough reason to control another person's body.

You do realize that these are not scientific or medical questions, right? That's like asking since when has science determined that a normal adult human has a right to life. It hasn't and we don't depend on science to answer this fundamentally philosophical question.

(Before someone complain that philosophy does a crap job answering such questions, which is fair enough, the fundamental questions here about what rights persons have, whether right to life or right to abortion, are really philosophical questions. They are also legal questions, of course, but this context really is about what legal rights they ought to have, which is not a legal question.)

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692357)
Yes, it is. A ban on all stents would be a ban on the installation of stents. See Minneapolis star Tribune vs commissar. An effort to tax paper to stop a newspaper counted as an effort to stop the paper directly.

Nope. The FDA only has the power to ban the DEVICE. Your claim was that the FDA had the power to ban a medical procedure itself. Please show me where the FDA has banned the actual procedure.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692354)
Sorry, Charlie. A 'device' is not a medical procedure. Try again.

I'm not allowed to drive my car into you against your will as an effort to cure your illness. Anything is a medical procedure if you try hard enough.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692362)
Nope. The FDA only has the power to ban the DEVICE. Your claim was that the FDA had the power to ban a medical procedure itself. Please show me where the FDA has banned the actual procedure.

Fine. They haven't. I think you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't qualify, but I will concede it for now.

ETA: what was the point of this digression? No argument being made was dependent on if prior laws had banned procedures or not.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 12692359)
You do realize that these are not scientific or medical questions, right? That's like asking since when has science determined that a normal adult human has a right to life. It hasn't and we don't depend on science to answer this fundamentally philosophical question.

(Before someone complain that philosophy does a crap job answering such questions, which is fair enough, the fundamental questions here about what rights persons have, whether right to life or right to abortion, are really philosophical questions. They are also legal questions, of course, but this context really is about what legal rights they ought to have, which is not a legal question.)

Science has never been asked to determine that a normal adult human has a right to life. That is, as you say, a philosophical question. However, my point still stands: when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a person is completely a matter of personal/religious belief. Therefore, Bob the Coward referring to abortion as "murder" is a personal/religious belief not based on any science.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692364)
I'm not allowed to drive my car into you against your will as an effort to cure your illness. Anything is a medical procedure if you try hard enough.

That analogy is completely irrelevant besides being downright silly.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692371)
That analogy is completely irrelevant besides being downright silly.

It wasn't an analogy.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692316)
Since when is it a women's issue to be allowed to commit murder without consequence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692365)
Fine. They haven't. I think you are absolutely wrong that it doesn't qualify, but I will concede it for now.

ETA: what was the point of this digression? No argument being made was dependent on if prior laws had banned procedures or not.

It was based on your statement above.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692374)
It was based on your statement above.

What does if the government has ever banned a procedure have to do with my statement?

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692373)
It wasn't an analogy.

Whether it was or not, it was still irrelevant and downright silly.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692375)
What does if the government has ever banned a procedure have to do with my statement?

Just go back and read our exchanges from that point on. I think you'll be able to figure it out..

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692378)
Just go back and read our exchanges from that point on. I think you'll be able to figure it out..

Based on post 27, we seem to agree that these positions are not based on science. I thought that was my point.


ETA: also, if it isn't clear, j dotn actually have an opinion if it is murder or not.

Stacyhs 11th May 2019 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12692382)
Based on post 27, we seem to agree that these positions are not based on science. I thought that was my point.


ETA: also, if it isn't clear, j dotn actually have an opinion if it is murder or not.

Your points are not always clear, based on your posting history.

Off to better things now.

shemp 11th May 2019 02:55 PM

I previously stated that the Bernie bros who advocated voting for Stein can go die in a dumpster fire. I wish to correct that. The Bernie bros who advocated voting for Stein AND the conservatives who want to overturn Roe v. Wade can ALL go die in a dumpster fire.

phiwum 11th May 2019 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12692368)
Science has never been asked to determine that a normal adult human has a right to life. That is, as you say, a philosophical question. However, my point still stands: when a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a person is completely a matter of personal/religious belief. Therefore, Bob the Coward referring to abortion as "murder" is a personal/religious belief not based on any science.

That's fine. I just wanted to point out the way you attempted to rebut Bob involved a silly question.

I did not read Bob's post, so I don't know whether he's the one who raised the point about science/medicine.

BobTheCoward 11th May 2019 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phiwum (Post 12692424)
That's fine. I just wanted to point out the way you attempted to rebut Bob involved a silly question.

I did not read Bob's post, so I don't know whether he's the one who raised the point about science/medicine.

I did not

JoeMorgue 11th May 2019 04:04 PM

Travis how many times is it now the government has turned into an Neo-con nightmare in your head? 10? 20? At this point I'm wondering how far you think it has to go.

Go outside.

theprestige 11th May 2019 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12692470)
Travis how many times is it now the government has turned into an Neo-con nightmare in your head? 10? 20? At this point I'm wondering how far you think it has to go.

Go outside.

Seriously. We already had Hitler and Double Hitler. What's next? Hitler 3000? Super Custom Turbo Hitler? Hitler's head in a jar?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.