ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws

Reply
Old 17th May 2019, 05:16 PM   #441
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Yup. It's all about punishing the sluts, one way or another.
That's like saying abortion support is all about killing babies. Well, no, it isn't. There's a fallacy being committed in both directions: assume that your axioms are shared, and then come up with a motive for why people who shared your axioms would choose a different policy. You assume that abortion opponents don't really think a fetus is a person with all the rights that entails, so you come up with an alternative for why someone would want to ban abortion even if they didn't think that.

And likewise, someone claiming abortion advocates want to murder babies is assuming that those abortion advocates consider fetuses to be people. But the axioms are not shared. The axiom that a fetus is a person leads rather directly to abortion opposition, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom. The axiom that a fetus is not a person leads rather directly to abortion support, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom.

There are people in the middle who aren't sure about what axiom to hold regarding fetuses, and they can sometimes be swayed on the basis of how attractive a policy outcome looks to them. But anyone who holds strongly to an axiom is going to have their position follow almost inevitably from that, and you not only won't sway them with an argument that transparently doesn't apply to them, you'll just further polarize the discussion.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 05:53 PM   #442
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Georgia would punish the women. It's Alabama that doesn't. Kay Ivey talks like she expects the Alabama law to be struck down.

Seems to me some provisions would interfere with interstate commerce.

It would be helpful to have a spreadsheet or something that lays out the data on different measures. Not necessarily the most extreme laws, though that would be interesting too. Things are happening very quickly now.

Y'all wanna get pregnant in the South so you can get a legal abortion, better hurry!
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 07:07 PM   #443
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,961
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's like saying abortion support is all about killing babies. Well, no, it isn't. There's a fallacy being committed in both directions: assume that your axioms are shared, and then come up with a motive for why people who shared your axioms would choose a different policy. You assume that abortion opponents don't really think a fetus is a person with all the rights that entails, so you come up with an alternative for why someone would want to ban abortion even if they didn't think that.

And likewise, someone claiming abortion advocates want to murder babies is assuming that those abortion advocates consider fetuses to be people. But the axioms are not shared. The axiom that a fetus is a person leads rather directly to abortion opposition, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom. The axiom that a fetus is not a person leads rather directly to abortion support, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom.

There are people in the middle who aren't sure about what axiom to hold regarding fetuses, and they can sometimes be swayed on the basis of how attractive a policy outcome looks to them. But anyone who holds strongly to an axiom is going to have their position follow almost inevitably from that, and you not only won't sway them with an argument that transparently doesn't apply to them, you'll just further polarize the discussion.
To some extent you have a point, but you are missing what the spoken motivation is for some of these religious fanatics.

They want sex to be risky to force abstinence. It's fine with some people that sex leads to STDs because they believe that motivates abstinence. They believe women should suffer the consequences of sinful (aka out of wedlock) sex.

Look up why people support abstinence only education even when the data shows it is ineffective.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 07:07 PM   #444
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
No... I meant my post responding to you just above that one. But nice rant.
Thanks.

I don't know how I overlooked the post you meant.

On the one hand, I agree completely. Sex education and attitudes towards sex in general very plausibly have a direct effect on the number of abortions and the same people pushing for outlawing abortion are decidedly against comprehensive sex education and the easy availability of contraceptives.

But that's not the same thing as saying that legalization causes a decrease in demand. That's saying that the same values that tend to lead to legalized abortion also lead to better sex ed and so on and this in turn leads to fewer abortions. In other words, legalization and decreased demand have a common cause, not that legalization itself causes the lessened demand.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 08:44 PM   #445
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,023
So, my wife talked to a friend of hers today, and it seems that there is an "underground railroad" (their term) organizing to help women in Ohio get to Michigan to have an abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Ohio has already passed a strict law, but here in Michigan, the governor is a Democratic woman. Abortion is going to stay legal in Michigan for at least the next four years.

This "underground railroad" is being organized with secret codewords and everything.

Uhhhh…...honey......it's not illegal. It's ok to leave Ohio and go to Michigan, and the Ohio legislature can't make anything illegal that happens in Michigan.

I've been informed that we are going to register as one of the safe houses where Ohio women who need abortions can stay. I mentioned I wasn't really keen on the idea, but very shortly into the conversation, I changed to "Good idea, honey."

The truth is I have no objection at all, and approve of it happening. I just don't think my style of people skills are the sort that you would want around a woman who is under a lot of stress just before, or after, she aborts a pregnancy. I'm more of a "How's it going? Beer's in the fridge" sort of host. However, my wife the psychologist can probably do a much better job.


What I found funny about the whole thing, though, was the whole sense of urgency and overall extreme significance of this effort. There's no reason it has to be underground. We don't need codewords. I know the people she was talking to, though, and they take themselves Very Seriously, so "underground railroad" it is. I guess it pays tribute to our Detroit heritage. Back in the day when this was the quickest way to Canada for escaped slaves from Missouri, Kentucky, and thereabouts, Detroit had a lot of Underground Railroad traffic.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 08:57 PM   #446
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,239
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What I found funny about the whole thing, though, was the whole sense of urgency and overall extreme significance of this effort. There's no reason it has to be underground. We don't need codewords. I know the people she was talking to, though, and they take themselves Very Seriously, so "underground railroad" it is. I guess it pays tribute to our Detroit heritage. Back in the day when this was the quickest way to Canada for escaped slaves from Missouri, Kentucky, and thereabouts, Detroit had a lot of Underground Railroad traffic.
given the number of clinic that have been bombed and doctors killed by pro-lifers, I don't think it is irrational to want to have the process of facilitating help for women in these situations a secret.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 09:50 PM   #447
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Can anybody put forth a coherent defense of punishing doctors while the person who ordered the hit is held harmless?
If the goal is deterrence (rather than retributive justice), then that actually makes sense. There are going to be fewer doctors performing abortions than women getting abortions, making the target audience you have to deter smaller. And the odds of catching a doctor who performs multiple abortions will be much higher than the odds of catching a woman who only gets one abortion done. In fact, by giving women immunity to prosecution, it's easier to get them to turn witness against the doctor who performed the abortion, and doctors considering performing abortions would know this up front, which also increases deterrence. The odds of getting caught are usually a bigger factor in deterrence than the severity of the punishment, and the odds of getting caught will probably be low for any one woman if they face criminal prosecution. So as a simple practical matter, it makes sense to focus on the smaller group. Doctors act as a choke point for abortion services. Expanding prosecution to women adds a lot more work for not much more deterrent effect.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 10:02 PM   #448
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,239
There is no way to convict a doctor without also convicting the one he is performing on: if abortion is murder, then asking someone to do it is solicitation to commit murder.
People who wrote the law clearly didn't care about how the law works.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 10:12 PM   #449
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,787
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
.....
This "underground railroad" is being organized with secret codewords and everything.

Uhhhh…...honey......it's not illegal. It's ok to leave Ohio and go to Michigan, and the Ohio legislature can't make anything illegal that happens in Michigan.
....

It might not be illegal -- yet -- but there are certainly reasons why a woman might need to hide what she's doing from parents, spouses, partners, etc., not to mention evading the crazies who shoot doctors, blow up clinics, etc.

And don't be so sure that crossing a state line will save you from the long arm of the law:
Quote:
Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...in-prison.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th May 2019, 11:11 PM   #450
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 788
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, my wife talked to a friend of hers today, and it seems that there is an "underground railroad" (their term) organizing to help women in Ohio get to Michigan to have an abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Ohio has already passed a strict law, but here in Michigan, the governor is a Democratic woman. Abortion is going to stay legal in Michigan for at least the next four years.

This "underground railroad" is being organized with secret codewords and everything.

Uhhhh…...honey......it's not illegal. It's ok to leave Ohio and go to Michigan, and the Ohio legislature can't make anything illegal that happens in Michigan.

I've been informed that we are going to register as one of the safe houses where Ohio women who need abortions can stay. I mentioned I wasn't really keen on the idea, but very shortly into the conversation, I changed to "Good idea, honey."

The truth is I have no objection at all, and approve of it happening. I just don't think my style of people skills are the sort that you would want around a woman who is under a lot of stress just before, or after, she aborts a pregnancy. I'm more of a "How's it going? Beer's in the fridge" sort of host. However, my wife the psychologist can probably do a much better job.


What I found funny about the whole thing, though, was the whole sense of urgency and overall extreme significance of this effort. There's no reason it has to be underground. We don't need codewords. I know the people she was talking to, though, and they take themselves Very Seriously, so "underground railroad" it is. I guess it pays tribute to our Detroit heritage. Back in the day when this was the quickest way to Canada for escaped slaves from Missouri, Kentucky, and thereabouts, Detroit had a lot of Underground Railroad traffic.

How adorable. As a man you aren't likely equipped to fully appreciate the concerns engendered in women by this rapidly devolving state of affairs. It has got to the point that there is looming on the not-distant horizon the possibly of the Supreme Court soon enough striking down Roe v Wade. Our principal near-term hope is RBG remaining kicking 'til the Dems put to rout the Repugnicans, and Justice Roberts retaining his good sense.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 02:34 AM   #451
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,299
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm just arguing that I don't think that the claim abortion is wrong is obviously stupid and when you try to see it from the perspective that abortion is like murder, you can understand their actions without attributing them to malice, misogyny and evil.
Of course you can, but then you couldn't dismiss their concerns out of hand.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 02:46 AM   #452
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,299
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
An aborted fetus is not more special then the countless billions upon countless billion of fertilized egg shells naturally expelled every year.
Not to support the pro-life side, but: Is it different from the millions upon millions of human cadavers we get each year? The whole question is whether a foetus is more one than the other. I know where my conclusion lies, but it can be entirely reasonable to conclude something else.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
IOW they don't care about saving fetuses, they care about punishing women and doctors.
...who kill foetuses. Again, that's in their minds.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Illegal abortion is also an option.
No legal option.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But I tend to see physical burdens as social burdens. If you're drowning and I try to save you, I don't get to change my mind halfway through because the physical burden is too inconvenient. A firefighter doesn't get to opt out of carrying people from a burning building because "lol people are heavy".
Is that... an analogy?

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
"Hey I don't care if a Woman's basic rights are taken away as long as I get my Tax cuts".
Well, they don't see it as a woman's basic right because they think no one has the right to murder. Well, except the state, that is.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 03:04 AM   #453
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,299
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Like I already said, a relative of mine DID face that. She WAS raped by her father. Her mother had died in a car accident, so belief wasn't relevant. She DID have an abortion. And guess what: it didn't protect her. It enabled her father to continue to rape her, for years. And it eventually drove her to suicide.
But the problem there wasn't the abortion; it was her father.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Wow. I'm actually adding "A 12 year old rape victim being forced to carry to term is a BAD THING" to the list of things I've managed to find people to be contrarian over.
Joe, seriously, people who disagree with you can have legitimate points on this issue. Even my own conclusion ("up to viability") is a compromise. Sure, a 12 year-old carrying a foetus to term and then having a child is horrible, but the argument that the child should not pay with its life for that is not crazy.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again I'll take it over you telling the 13 year old rape victim to carry the baby.
Reminds me of the egging thread. Either one agrees with me or they're Nazi supporters.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 04:04 AM   #454
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
There is no way to convict a doctor without also convicting the one he is performing on: if abortion is murder, then asking someone to do it is solicitation to commit murder.
People who wrote the law clearly didn't care about how the law works.
I don't see why the legislature can't pass a law that says (1) if a doctor performs an abortion, he has committed homicide and can be prosecuted under the appropriate law but (2) a woman requesting this procedure cannot be prosecuted under any relevant law. I suppose a court might find that unconstitutional, but it's not immediately apparent to me what the argument would be.

Absent a court ruling, the legislature can do precisely what you say they can't. (Of course, there's a fairly obvious argument that the law is unconstitutional that has nothing to do with your point, but there's also a greater likelihood that the Supreme Court will decide it's kosher than at any time since Roe v Wade. I still think it's pretty darned unlikely to be okayed by the justices, but I'm not nearly as confident as I'd like.)
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 06:09 AM   #455
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,023
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It might not be illegal -- yet -- but there are certainly reasons why a woman might need to hide what she's doing from parents, spouses, partners, etc., not to mention evading the crazies who shoot doctors, blow up clinics, etc.

And don't be so sure that crossing a state line will save you from the long arm of the law:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...in-prison.html
Yeah.....uhhh...about that Slate article....

Oh, wait. It has already been said. A lot. Never mind.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 06:13 AM   #456
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
How adorable. As a man you aren't likely equipped to fully appreciate the concerns engendered in women by this rapidly devolving state of affairs.
https://babylonbee.com/news/man-iden...on-on-abortion
It's satire... but is it?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 07:16 AM   #457
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,013
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Can't be much worse than what's going on in the real world. Some real knee-slappers in here: https://thinkprogress.org/republican...-e298f362f7cb/

My personal favourite was the first one, where women are apparently seeking out abortions before they know they're pregnant. Try to wrap your head around that.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 09:37 AM   #458
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,787
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Yeah.....uhhh...about that Slate article....

Oh, wait. It has already been said. A lot. Never mind.
A prosecution might not succeed, and a conviction might not be upheld. However, nothing would prevent a grandstanding DA from pressing charges, with all the attendant expense and legal misery. If the law contends that a fetus is a person from conception, then carrying the fetus out of state to "kill" it wouldn't be any different legally from carrying your grandma across state lines to put her to "sleep."

And every year legislation is proposed (so far not passed) to make it a federal crime for anyone other than her parents to take a minor out of state for an abortion.
https://www.care2.com/causes/what-if...-abortion.html

Last edited by Bob001; 18th May 2019 at 09:48 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 10:09 AM   #459
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
For the pro choice side...

Do you have an argument that the "abortion is murder" side hasn't heard yet? If not, why even discuss the subject with them?
I think I might.

What if the pro-choice side stipulated that yes, abortion ends a human life? Not that it's murder, because murder has a specific legal meaning, but that it might qualify as homicide. Well, we kill people sometimes, innocent people, and we justify it as collateral damage for the greater good.

I would say it's obvious that Alabama doesn't consider abortion to be murder, or even a crime, since pregnant women are not held criminally liable. In fact, there is great precedence to argue that early abortion has not been considered murder, or homicide, in common law, the Bible, U.S. history and Catholic-Protestant history. Destroying zygotes or early-stage embryos is not considered a crime or a sin among many evangelicals, although it is definitively sinful in Catholic doctrine.

Maybe fighting all this stuff point-by-point, as is done in litigation, is necessary to tease out the myriad inconsistencies in abortion laws and arrive at something like consensus. It's too bad that girls/women will be forced to carry rapist's offspring to term or that women may be imprisoned, but oh well.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 10:24 AM   #460
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If the goal is deterrence (rather than retributive justice), then that actually makes sense.
If the goal is deterrence, then the laws also should talk about sex education and access to contraceptives. Under those circumstances abortion falls.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Doctors act as a choke point for abortion services. Expanding prosecution to women adds a lot more work for not much more deterrent effect.
Principles are sacrificed because it's less work?

Also, doctors aren't really necessary for abortions, though it's better to have a health-care professional involved.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 11:14 AM   #461
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Principles are sacrificed because it's less work?
What principle do you think is being sacrificed?

And public policy is almost always a compromise between multiple competing principles. Reducing costs is a legitimate principle which competes with basically every other policy goal.

Quote:
Also, doctors aren't really necessary for abortions, though it's better to have a health-care professional involved.
If a woman performs an abortion on herself, how could you possibly catch her? Is she going to tell on herself? There's no real enforcement mechanism there.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 11:24 AM   #462
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,501
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
To some extent you have a point, but you are missing what the spoken motivation is for some of these religious fanatics.

They want sex to be risky to force abstinence. It's fine with some people that sex leads to STDs because they believe that motivates abstinence. They believe women should suffer the consequences of sinful (aka out of wedlock) sex.

Look up why people support abstinence only education even when the data shows it is ineffective.
And ONLY women. 'Cause boys will be boys, or something.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 11:40 AM   #463
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What principle do you think is being sacrificed?
That conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And public policy is almost always a compromise between multiple competing principles. Reducing costs is a legitimate principle which competes with basically every other policy goal.
Even more reason to include sex education and access to contraceptives in laws restricting abortion.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If a woman performs an abortion on herself, how could you possibly catch her? Is she going to tell on herself? There's no real enforcement mechanism there.
Well, she could end up in the ER with life-threatening injuries, so there's that. Or someone close to her might rat her out. Or later in life evidence could be found of an illegal abortion and under some laws she could be prosecuted. Or they could subpoena laptops for evidence of ordering - or even looking up - abortifacients online. Anti-abortion forces could ransack garbage cans looking for discarded boxes/wrappers/blister packs and keep a running list.

That's 5 possibilities. I'm sure there are more.

Last edited by Minoosh; 18th May 2019 at 11:41 AM. Reason: fixed garble
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 11:48 AM   #464
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,360
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I think I might.

What if the pro-choice side stipulated that yes, abortion ends a human life? Not that it's murder, because murder has a specific legal meaning, but that it might qualify as homicide. Well, we kill people sometimes, innocent people, and we justify it as collateral damage for the greater good.

I would say it's obvious that Alabama doesn't consider abortion to be murder, or even a crime, since pregnant women are not held criminally liable. In fact, there is great precedence to argue that early abortion has not been considered murder, or homicide, in common law, the Bible, U.S. history and Catholic-Protestant history. Destroying zygotes or early-stage embryos is not considered a crime or a sin among many evangelicals, although it is definitively sinful in Catholic doctrine.

Maybe fighting all this stuff point-by-point, as is done in litigation, is necessary to tease out the myriad inconsistencies in abortion laws and arrive at something like consensus. It's too bad that girls/women will be forced to carry rapist's offspring to term or that women may be imprisoned, but oh well.

Maybe a good lawyer can make abortion = self defense. "The damn thing is growing in me, I didn't put it there!"

If men could get pregnant these same guys would vote for free abortions and there'd be clinics on every corner.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 12:10 PM   #465
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,961
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...

If a woman performs an abortion on herself, how could you possibly catch her? Is she going to tell on herself? There's no real enforcement mechanism there.


How do you catch any accused criminal when no witness willing to testify exists?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 18th May 2019 at 12:11 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 12:11 PM   #466
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Maybe a good lawyer can make abortion = self defense. "The damn thing is growing in me, I didn't put it there!"

If men could get pregnant these same guys would vote for free abortions and there'd be clinics on every corner.
I don't think that men have no right to an opinion, but I also think most of them don't have the grasp the panic many women face on the very first day of a missed period- "I can't be pregnant, not now!" You just want to suck that blood right out of you. I'm not sure why there couldn't be one-use, sterile catheters that actually accomplish this. Ordinary over-the-counter medications are available for use very early. By the first day of a missed period it's probably too late.

ETA: The panic could be: My parents will kick me out, my husband will kill me, I'll be fired from work, my other children will starve ... people who frame this as a matter of convenience are wrong.

Last edited by Minoosh; 18th May 2019 at 12:12 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 12:29 PM   #467
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post


How do you catch any accused criminal when no witness willing to testify exists?
You need to know about a crime before you can possibly catch a criminal, something your inclusion of "accused" already assumes. When the crime itself isn't reported, you can't catch the criminal.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 12:36 PM   #468
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
That conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime.
But if it's not illegal for a woman to get an abortion, she cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to plan an abortion. A conspiracy conviction requires that your contemplated actions are illegal.

Quote:
Well, she could end up in the ER with life-threatening injuries, so there's that.
That would seem to provide sufficient deterrence in and of itself, to the extent that this possibility is relevant.

Quote:
That's 5 possibilities. I'm sure there are more.
Oh, I'm not saying it's impossible. But they are all unlikely. And deterrence doesn't really work when your odds of getting caught are low.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 12:48 PM   #469
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,625
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I would say it's obvious that Alabama doesn't consider abortion to be murder, or even a crime, since pregnant women are not held criminally liable.
Wrong. Pregnant women aren't held criminally liable because a) the legislature knows that very few doctors will take the risk if they can be given ridiculous prison sentences and b) pregnant women are more sympathetic figures than doctors who perform abortions.

If they didn't consider abortion a crime, then they wouldn't pass a ******* law that makes it a crime.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 01:03 PM   #470
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,961
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You need to know about a crime before you can possibly catch a criminal, something your inclusion of "accused" already assumes. When the crime itself isn't reported, you can't catch the criminal.
That makes assumptions easily refuted. But this sidetrack is meaningless.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 01:04 PM   #471
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Wrong. Pregnant women aren't held criminally liable because a) the legislature knows that very few doctors will take the risk if they can be given ridiculous prison sentences and b) pregnant women are more sympathetic figures than doctors who perform abortions.

If they didn't consider abortion a crime, then they wouldn't pass a ******* law that makes it a crime.
I meant that getting an abortion is not a crime. It would be like prosecuting the hit man but not the person who hired him.

This batch of emerging laws will be challenged for all sorts of reasons, and that might be one of them.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 01:38 PM   #472
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,625
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I meant that getting an abortion is not a crime. It would be like prosecuting the hit man but not the person who hired him.
There's an inherent assumption here and in many posts that the currently passed and proposed laws are the endgame. They are not. Once Roe is overturned, they'll push these laws as far as they can. There is no question in my mind that, if these people are successful, we will definitely have pregnant abortion-seekers sitting in jail cells until they give birth.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 02:19 PM   #473
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But if it's not illegal for a woman to get an abortion, she cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to plan an abortion. A conspiracy conviction requires that your contemplated actions are illegal.
You're saying it's OK because the law makes it OK. And I'm asking, what make the law OK? What would you think about a new law that made it illegal to carry out a "hit," but not illegal to hire a hit man? IMO, if it's illegal to perform an abortion, it should be illegal to solicit an abortion. Georgia is more consistent on that point.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That would seem to provide sufficient deterrence in and of itself, to the extent that this possibility is relevant.
Sometimes people in a panic make poor choices.

Illegal abortion has gotten less risky mainly due to reliable miscarriage-inducing drugs. Of course, new laws in the U.S. target those as well. Also, doctors have gotten better at controlling bleeding and treating sepsis. But in many countries those women will be punished.

When Abortion Is Illegal, Women Rarely Die. But They Still Suffer

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Oh, I'm not saying it's impossible. But they are all unlikely.
Moving the goalposts:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If a woman performs an abortion on herself, how could you possibly catch her?
You've discounted the possibilities I raised.

Last edited by Minoosh; 18th May 2019 at 02:20 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 02:27 PM   #474
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
There's an inherent assumption here and in many posts that the currently passed and proposed laws are the endgame. They are not. Once Roe is overturned, they'll push these laws as far as they can. There is no question in my mind that, if these people are successful, we will definitely have pregnant abortion-seekers sitting in jail cells until they give birth.
I don't see it as a given that Roe will be overturned, but of course it's a possibility.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 03:15 PM   #475
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,625
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I don't see it as a given that Roe will be overturned, but of course it's a possibility.
I'd like to think that this is the last gasp of conservative nutjobs who see their power has plateaued or is on the decline. However, the number of laws proposed and passed in a short amount of time may indicate that they've determined the Supreme Court is ready to do the deed. It's not like the justices exist in isolation from society. They get to chat with their friends, both decent and scum, just like everybody else. If that kind of informal polling shows the majority willing to **** on Roe, then the situation is dire. It could be years before the damage to the Supreme Court is repaired, years in which women in many states are once again without legal control of their own bodies.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 04:20 PM   #476
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
You're saying it's OK because the law makes it OK.
I'm saying that it's legal because the law makes it legal.

Quote:
And I'm asking, what make the law OK?
Sometimes nothing. Sometimes it's OK under one person's beliefs and not OK under another's. This is not in any way peculiar to the law under discussion.

Quote:
Sometimes people in a panic make poor choices.
And that would be true regardless of the legal status of the act.

Quote:
Illegal abortion has gotten less risky mainly due to reliable miscarriage-inducing drugs. Of course, new laws in the U.S. target those as well. Also, doctors have gotten better at controlling bleeding and treating sepsis. But in many countries those women will be punished.
We're specifically talking about the US.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 05:17 PM   #477
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,029
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
It's evangelical men who are used to be in charge over women, and who feel that their God gave them the role as the leader of the household. They think women who end up pregnant outside of wedlock are sluts that ought to be punished, and that having an abortion while married is an affront to God who told them to procreate.

They are simultaneously worried about being outbred by "inferior races" which would result in whites being in the minority.
It's actually simpler than that. They want to prevent their own babies from being aborted, and they want to punish sluts for having sex with other males. It's all about propagating their own genes, and no reasoning got them into that position - just simple biology.


The Selfish Gene
Quote:
...the claim is that there isn't much of a struggle because the genes usually win without a fight. However... if the organism becomes intelligent enough to understand its own interests, as distinct from those of its genes, there can be true conflict.

An example of such a conflict might be a person using birth control to prevent fertilization, thereby inhibiting the replication of his or her genes.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 06:26 PM   #478
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,244
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
It's actually simpler than that. They want to prevent their own babies from being aborted, and they want to punish sluts for having sex with other males. It's all about propagating their own genes, and no reasoning got them into that position - just simple biology.


The Selfish Gene
That makes no sense. From a purely biological competition perspective, one should encourage women impregnated by competitors to abort. Making them have babies isn't punishment in an evolutionary sense, it's actually helping them.

In other words, your attempted rationalization is complete and transparent nonsense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 09:49 PM   #479
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,211
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm saying that it's legal because the law makes it legal.
Does that make it just? You ignored my question.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sometimes nothing. Sometimes it's OK under one person's beliefs and not OK under another's. This is not in any way peculiar to the law under discussion.
The question was prompted by Alabama's abortion law; I asked about Alabama's abortion law, not a rhetorical "sometimes."

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And that would be true regardless of the legal status of the act.
You asked how anyone could possibly detect a self-induced abortion. When that question was answered you changed your argument. Now, apparently, "scared people are going to make bad decisions anyway" has become your argument.

I don't know how many ER visits are the result of somebody's bad judgment, but I bet it's oodles. However, I still want ERs to mitigate the damage from bad judgment. Do you?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We're specifically talking about the US.
So we are. Georgia is in the United States.

The safety of illegal abortions has gone up largely because pregnancies can reliably be terminated chemically. But that's about to become illegal in Georgia, Alabama and other states as well. Will it drive more young women to stick coat hangers up themselves? Who knows? Who even cares?

Early abortion has been legal under common law, under American law, under the Old Testament and even under evangelical Christian standards until relatively recently. It's de facto legal in Israel. If "conservatives" want to make it illegal, ask yourself: What is conservative about that course of action?

Last edited by Minoosh; 18th May 2019 at 09:51 PM.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2019, 10:10 PM   #480
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,239
The bill is in direct violation of the Constitution if only doctors, not the women, can be charged for illegal abortion.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.