International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

gnome 9th August 2022 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873776)
I would bet most people here deny that traditional view of free will

Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.

acbytesla 9th August 2022 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13874400)
"Just because it's hard to prosecute the person that fired the bullet that hurt you, is not grounds to criminalize shooting in the air for people that did not hurt you."

Do you agree with that statement?

Excellent analogy.

catsmate 9th August 2022 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13874400)
"Just because it's hard to prosecute the person that fired the bullet that hurt you, is not grounds to criminalize shooting in the air for people that did not hurt you."

Do you agree with that statement?

Might I suggest ignoring (or Ignoring) the childish, pseudo-libertarian trolling?

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13874412)
Excellent analogy.

I agree. very good analogy.

cosmicaug 9th August 2022 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13873483)
From https://jessica.substack.com/p/abortion-every-day-8822#details
Quote:

This is distressing: A Nebraska woman is facing felony charges for helping her teenage daughter obtain an abortion earlier this year. Her daughter, who was 17 years-old at the time and 22 weeks pregnant (abortion is illegal in the state after 20 weeks), is also being charged. She will be tried as an adult. I’m looking to get more details on the case, but a couple of noteworthy items: Law enforcement not only went through the girl’s medical records, but got a warrant for her Facebook messages. That’s where the mother and daughter allegedly talked about how to properly take abortion medication—the prosecutor is also using a message where the teen expressed not wanting to be pregnant as evidence.
'

Much better and informative piece on that:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/teens-jailing-shows-exactly-how-facebook-will-help-anti-abortion-states/

Quote:

[...]

What happened?
According to court documents, Burgess was 28 weeks pregnant when her mother, Jessica Burgess (who is also being charged), helped her mail-order abortion pills in April to terminate the pregnancy.


An abortion at 28 weeks breaks Nebraska law, which hasn't changed since the Dobbs decision, but prevents abortion after 20 weeks.


McBride says his investigation started when he learned that the mother and daughter had buried a child after claiming the baby was stillborn. Immediately, McBride sought medical records to find out when Celeste miscarried, and when he interviewed the teen about the day of her miscarriage, he noticed that she consulted her Facebook Messenger app to determine the exact date.


This led McBride to believe that there was more evidence in the case stored on Facebook owner Meta's servers. So, even though the final autopsy report said the cause of the baby's death was undetermined, McBride still sought evidence to confirm that Celeste had an abortion. He says in his affidavit that Celeste sharing her messages with him was a turning point that led him to believe that "there will be more messages."


His request to Meta cited suspicions that the tech company was keeping evidence of a crime under Prohibited Acts with Skeletal Remains, not abortion. To support his case, he sought every photo of mother and daughter, plus every photo they'd been tagged in, all their private messages, and location data via their IP logs.
[...]

Stacyhs 9th August 2022 03:22 PM

This is why I never post on my FB page or twitter. I never post anything anywhere I don't want the entire world to see. Some people should learn this.

slyjoe 9th August 2022 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13874463)
This is why I never post on my FB page or twitter. I never post anything anywhere I don't want the entire world to see. Some people should learn this.

Exactly right. I learned early on in my career that ANY communications system can be tapped and/or monitored. ANY.

If you stick with that assumption, you won't be surprised when your communications ARE tapped or monitored. Lawfully or not.

bruto 9th August 2022 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873906)
Just because something is hard to prosecute the person that hurt you is not grounds to criminalize those who did not hurt you

Do you, though? What is criminalized is not the absence of a vaccination, but the social interaction done by those who are unvaccinated. You can argue that the handicap here is so great that it amounts to the same thing, but tantamount does not equal "the same."

gnome 9th August 2022 06:16 PM

More to the point, there's well established justification to criminalize some acts that are unacceptably risky to others. BobTheCoward may wish that people could endanger fellow citizens all they want and only risk that plays out badly and can be traced back to them matters. But there's no basis to reject it except that he doesn't personally agree. Next: you can't prohibit pollution. If someone gets harmed by pollution they can always trace the exact molecule that did it to the company that supplied it and sue them. If they still exist. That will surely be adequate deterrent.

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13874575)
More to the point, there's well established justification to criminalize some acts that are unacceptably risky to others. BobTheCoward may wish that people could endanger fellow citizens all they want and only risk that plays out badly and can be traced back to them matters. But there's no basis to reject it except that he doesn't personally agree. Next: you can't prohibit pollution. If someone gets harmed by pollution they can always trace the exact molecule that did it to the company that supplied it and sue them. If they still exist. That will surely be adequate deterrent.

Deleted....replying why you are incorrect will just go off topic.

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 06:52 PM

With the gunshot example, that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Arguing that anti abortion laws constrain the actions of the mother just doesn't amount to much if you believe the fetus has a soul and it is murder.

acbytesla 9th August 2022 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13874606)
With the gunshot example, that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time. Arguing that anti abortion laws constrain the actions of the mother just doesn't amount to much if you believe the fetus has a soul and it is murder.

No, it shows that the government has a right, no a duty to protect society from indiscriminate reckless behavior or indifference. It is not analogous to a woman carrying a fetus for 9 months and delivering it.

It's one thing to say you must get a shot or wear a mask or not fire a gun recklessly. It's another thing entirely to demand that a female endanger herself and put her in a position to damage the rest of her life for a clump of cells.

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13874636)
No, it shows that the government has a right, no a duty to protect society from indiscriminate reckless behavior or indifference. It is not analogous to a woman carrying a fetus for 9 months and delivering it.

It's one thing to say you must get a shot or wear a mask or not fire a gun recklessly. It's another thing entirely to demand that a female endanger herself and put her in a position to damage the rest of her life for a clump of cells.

I don't know how to talk about this. You and I, and most here, agree it is a clump of cells. But we are in the current situation because a lot of people don't think it is a clump of cells. So while me pointing out that they don't think it is a clump of cells isn't making a logical argument, it also means it isn't tackling the issue that they are driving and winning (ish) the outcome.

gnome 10th August 2022 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13874606)
that shows that government constrain the actions of others against their will all the time.

Otherwise known as "laws". What significant conclusion can you draw from "laws exist"? Is your argument there truly "some things are prohibited, so why object to this being prohibited?"

Suddenly 10th August 2022 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13874404)
Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.

I mean, questioning the idea of absolute free will is arguably the best indicator that a person is capable of abstract thought. These sorts of criticisms are kind of a giveaway.

shuttlt 10th August 2022 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13874404)
Somewhere along the line somebody decided it would be a great "gotcha" argument to pretend that all naturalists were determinists and did not believe in free will. Here we see that straw man again being knocked around.

This is only an issue if your idea of free will is incompatible with determinism. Not all notions of free will are incompatible with it.

Upchurch 10th August 2022 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13875032)
This is only an issue if your idea of free will is incompatible with determinism. Not all notions of free will are incompatible with it.

But most are. The kind of determinism you're talking about is known as soft determinism. That isn't what Bob was referring to wasn't soft determinism.

acbytesla 10th August 2022 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13874648)
I don't know how to talk about this. You and I, and most here, agree it is a clump of cells. But we are in the current situation because a lot of people don't think it is a clump of cells. So while me pointing out that they don't think it is a clump of cells isn't making a logical argument, it also means it isn't tackling the issue that they are driving and winning (ish) the outcome.

Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.

BobTheCoward 10th August 2022 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13875104)
Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.

...which is why I wrote "(ish)"

catsmate 11th August 2022 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13875104)
Are they winning? They certainly got into the game with Dobbs. But they got crushed in Kansas last week. This war is nowhere near over.

I think the Republicans learned their lesson; Democracy is Bad.

JoeMorgue 11th August 2022 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13875660)
I think the Republicans learned their lesson; Democracy is Bad.

Yeah I doubt any other state is going to put abortion to a popular vote again.

d4m10n 11th August 2022 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13875758)
Yeah I doubt any other state is going to put abortion to a popular vote again.

I don't doubt it.

Take deep red Oklahoma for example, where popular plebiscite has overruled the majority party around half a dozen times since the turn of the millennium. (Kane lists four, but leaves a couple of them off, most notably Blaine Amendment retention.)

BobTheCoward 11th August 2022 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13875758)
Yeah I doubt any other state is going to put abortion to a popular vote again.

They won't need to...voters will still put anti abortion politicians into office

JoeMorgue 11th August 2022 06:39 AM

Hmmm, maybe I was wrong.

USA Today: Most Americans want chance to support abortion rights on state ballot, USA TODAY/Ipsos poll finds

Quote:

Americans overwhelmingly would like to be able to vote on an abortion measure on their state ballot, an exclusive USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds. And if they had the chance, they would oppose efforts to ban the procedure by almost 2-1.

The survey, taken in the aftermath of the stunning defeat in Kansas last week of a proposal to remove abortion rights from the state constitution, is more evidence of a backlash to the Supreme Court's decision that allows states to sharpen restrictions on abortion or bar it entirely.

Seven in 10 say they would support using a ballot measure to decide abortion rights in their state, an idea backed across party lines, by 73% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans and 67% of independents. Democrats are the most energized on the issue; 43% say they "strongly support" putting abortion on the ballot.
Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...l/10284741002/

cosmicaug 11th August 2022 09:39 AM

They are trying:
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/26378/mailing-abortion-pills-punishable-by-five-years-in-prison-mississippi-ag-argues

Throw enough **** against the wall & hope that something sticks (and something will... probably not this time but eventually):

Quote:

In the Aug. 4 filing, Mississippi’s Republican attorney general argued that no federal policy “preempts state laws banning medication abortion.”


“If anything, federal law adopts the opposite policy from what GBP claims. Federal law criminalizes the use of the mails to do what GBP demands this Court to allow it to do: distribute abortion-inducing drugs,” Fitch said.


She cited two sections of the U.S. code. The first, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, says that “every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use” is “nonmailable.” The second law, 18 U.S.C. § 1462, prohibits using “any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce … any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.”


Both laws say that anyone breaking them could face up to five years in prison for a first offense or up to 10 years for subsequent offenses. The federal government has long declined to enforce those parts of the respective laws, however. Fitch argued in her lawsuit that those convicted under 1461 and 1462 could even face racketeering charges under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, also known as RICO. The earliest of these laws, known as the Comstock Act, dates back to 1873.

ponderingturtle 11th August 2022 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13875959)
They are trying:
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/26378/mailing-abortion-pills-punishable-by-five-years-in-prison-mississippi-ag-argues

Throw enough **** against the wall & hope that something sticks (and something will... probably not this time but eventually):

Bets on when we get back to it being illegal to get condoms through the mail?

JoeMorgue 11th August 2022 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13875962)
Bets on when we get back to it being illegal to get condoms through the mail?

Again this is one of those things "They've already admitted it, we don't have to ask" things.

Birth control is next. That was already said in Thomas's disposition.

d4m10n 11th August 2022 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13875964)
Birth control is next. That was already said in Thomas's disposition.

How many of his conservative colleagues signed on to that opinion?

gnome 11th August 2022 11:57 AM

About as many as were willing to indicate their opposition to Roe v. Wade at their confirmation hearings.

ZiprHead 11th August 2022 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13875959)
They are trying:
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/26378/mailing-abortion-pills-punishable-by-five-years-in-prison-mississippi-ag-argues

Throw enough **** against the wall & hope that something sticks (and something will... probably not this time but eventually):

What if they are sent by FedEx, DHL, etc.?

cosmicaug 11th August 2022 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiprHead (Post 13876140)
What if they are sent by FedEx, DHL, etc.?

I doubt that this particular thing will stick.

That said, the texts of the laws are referenced in that article so we can check for relevance.

For the first, it refers to mailing or mails, etc.. It's unclear whether that's a term of art, legally, that would have to involve the USPS or whether it just means using some kind of delivery method to get from point A to point B. My guess is that it wouldn't be sppecific to the USPS. If they meant only the USPS, I Would think that the USPS would be specifically mentioned in the actual text in (it's not like the USPS did not exist back whenever this was originally written).

The second is clearer on this:
Quote:

Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—
That would seem to indicate it would make no difference.

d4m10n 11th August 2022 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13876058)
About as many as were willing to indicate their opposition to Roe v. Wade at their confirmation hearings.

There is a long tradition—going back at least to RBG—of carefully avoiding straightforwardly stating which precedents one might hope to overrule during confirmation hearings. This is not true of judicial opinions, as we've seen with Thomas in particular but also in minority opinions from the Chief Justice.

catsmate 12th August 2022 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13875809)
Hmmm, maybe I was wrong.

USA Today: Most Americans want chance to support abortion rights on state ballot, USA TODAY/Ipsos poll finds



Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...l/10284741002/

So? They may want to vote on abortion rights. They may want to keep abortion safe and legal. But they're not going to get the chance.

d4m10n 12th August 2022 05:23 AM

Michigan organizers petition to enshrine abortion rights in state constitution
 
Quote:

Organizers in Michigan submitted 750,000 signatures for a November ballot initiative to enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/11111...e-constitution

Regnad Kcin 12th August 2022 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13875962)
Bets on when we get back to it being illegal to get condoms through the mail?

Manufacture a line with Trump’s picture on them and watch Republican heads a’splode.

smartcooky 12th August 2022 01:44 PM

It Begins: Facebook helps police snag a teen and her mom over abortion
 
The incident is yet another reminder that the anti-abortion surveillance machine is just starting to rev up.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/re...rant-rcna42384

Police in states with anti-abortion laws are going to use your devices and communications against you, so I have some advice for any young girl and her parents who would consider abortion as an option - try to make your digital footprint as small as possible, for example, using burner phones to communicate.

dudalb 12th August 2022 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13877151)
The incident is yet another reminder that the anti-abortion surveillance machine is just starting to rev up.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/re...rant-rcna42384

Police in states with anti-abortion laws are going to use your devices and communications against you, so I have some advice for any young girl and her parents who would consider abortion as an option - try to make your digital footprint as small as possible, for example, using burner phones to communicate.

Remember the Nightwatch in "Babylon 5"?

dudalb 12th August 2022 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13876733)
So? They may want to vote on abortion rights. They may want to keep abortion safe and legal. But they're not going to get the chance.

They have other ways of fighting back.
See Prohibition for details.
Hard to enforce a law when most people are against it.

smartcooky 12th August 2022 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13877198)
Remember the Nightwatch in "Babylon 5"?


Yup!

cosmicaug 12th August 2022 08:22 PM

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/idaho-top-court-allows-near-total-abortion-ban-take-effect-2022-08-13/

Quote:

Aug 12 (Reuters) - Idaho's top court on Friday refused to stop a Republican-backed state law criminalizing nearly all abortions from taking effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade that had recognized a constitutional right to the procedure.

In a 3-2 ruling, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected a bid by a Planned Parenthood affiliate to prevent a ban from taking effect on Aug. 25 that the abortion provider argued would violate Idahoans' privacy and equal protection rights under the state's constitution. The measure allows for abortions only in cases of rape, incest or to prevent a pregnant woman's death.

The court also lifted an earlier order that it issued in April blocking a separate Idaho law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy enforced through private lawsuits by citizens, allowing it to take effect immediately.
[...]


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.