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 18th May 2019, 10:21 PM   #481
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The bill is in direct violation of the Constitution if only doctors, not the women, can be charged for illegal abortion.
I agree, but I'm not sure what the argument would be under constitutional terms.
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, 11:15 PM   #482
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,170
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I agree, but I'm not sure what the argument would be under constitutional terms.
actually, it might be exactly the argument the Supreme Court majority might want to use in order not to take up the case.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 19th May 2019, 02:40 AM   #483
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,128
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Does that make it just? You ignored my question.
In this case I think Zig was clear that it did not.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is online now   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 19th May 2019, 07:47 AM   #484
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The bill is in direct violation of the Constitution if only doctors, not the women, can be charged for illegal abortion.
Perhaps, but what argument do you have in mind? Which part of the Constitution is violated?
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 19th May 2019, 07:49 AM   #485
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I agree, but I'm not sure what the argument would be under constitutional terms.
Why would you agree it's unconstitutional if you don't know why it's unconstitutional? Perhaps you mean that it's unjust or has inconsistent motivations or something?
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 19th May 2019, 08:16 AM   #486
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 775
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Perhaps, but what argument do you have in mind? Which part of the Constitution is violated?
Starting from a specifically non Constitutional standpoint...

The instigator of a crime is generally held responsible along with the perpetrator. Such as in the case of a killing by hire.

Taking abortion as 'murder', this act by a doctor can be considered as a 'hit' commissioned by the mother. She makes the decision; she's not under the spell of a Svengali. All free agents involved in a crime bear responsibility.

Unless one gets a good deal by testifying against the other(s) in order that some conviction be secured.

But to craft a law where only one party of an illegal act involving two or more knowing, willing participants (of the age of majority) bears the *sole* responsibility would seem to fly in the face of equality under the law.
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 19th May 2019, 11:14 AM   #487
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
In this case I think Zig was clear that it did not.
Where? I'm not seeing it.
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 19th May 2019, 11:21 AM   #488
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,170
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Perhaps, but what argument do you have in mind? Which part of the Constitution is violated?
Equality before the law, 14th amendment.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 19th May 2019, 11:24 AM   #489
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Starting from a specifically non Constitutional standpoint...

The instigator of a crime is generally held responsible along with the perpetrator. Such as in the case of a killing by hire.

Taking abortion as 'murder', this act by a doctor can be considered as a 'hit' commissioned by the mother. She makes the decision; she's not under the spell of a Svengali. All free agents involved in a crime bear responsibility.

Unless one gets a good deal by testifying against the other(s) in order that some conviction be secured.

But to craft a law where only one party of an illegal act involving two or more knowing, willing participants (of the age of majority) bears the *sole* responsibility would seem to fly in the face of equality under the law.
I just don't see an argument about constitutionality there. I totally get the intuition, but I don't know how to put it in terms of constitutionality.

I'm not saying a court wouldn't buy it in some sort of terms of equality under the law, but it would require going beyond the literal wording of the text, far as I know. Of course, I don't know much.
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 19th May 2019, 11:28 AM   #490
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Equality before the law, 14th amendment.
But everyone is equal before this law. All doctors who provide abortions are prosecutable and no woman receiving an abortion is, unless I suppose she is a doctor performing her own abortion.

This law lays out which people violate the law and applies uniformly. The distinctions are not obviously arbitrary, since the actions are different.

Maybe a court would buy the argument you suggest, I don't know. We'll probably never know, unless Roe is tossed into the garbage heap of history. (I don't mean to suggest it belongs there.)
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 19th May 2019, 11:29 AM   #491
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Perhaps, but what argument do you have in mind? Which part of the Constitution is violated?
I was agreeing about the part that said I didn't know what the constitutional argument would be.

But I now realize it's pretty simple. The Supreme Court made first-trimester abortion an absolute right in 1973. So putting the mark at 6 weeks, is by definition, unconstitutional.

ETA: Right now, a law establishing segregated schools would be unconstitutional. A law against gay marriage would be unconstitutional. AFAIK, states can't take away rights that the Supreme Court has established. The Supreme Court can change its mind though.

Last edited by Minoosh; 19th May 2019 at 11:34 AM.
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 19th May 2019, 11:43 AM   #492
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,170
Alabama doesn't get to make up a special kind of murder that only a certain profession can be guilty of.
If there is a crime, solicitation of it is a crime, too.
Also, no normal abortion can happen without a women's consent, making the women an accessory.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 19th May 2019, 11:45 AM   #493
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I was agreeing about the part that said I didn't know what the constitutional argument would be.

But I now realize it's pretty simple. The Supreme Court made first-trimester abortion an absolute right in 1973. So putting the mark at 6 weeks, is by definition, unconstitutional.
Sure, sure, the law undoubtedly is unconstitutional because of the Roe ruling. I was taking that for granted. It was the bit about making the doctor criminally liable but not the woman that I was asking about.
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 19th May 2019, 11:47 AM   #494
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Alabama doesn't get to make up a special kind of murder that only a certain profession can be guilty of.
If there is a crime, solicitation of it is a crime, too.
Also, no normal abortion can happen without a women's consent, making the women an accessory.
Solicitation to murder is a crime because there's a law saying so. Another law can carve out an exception to the first law. I just don't see the problem.

Again, maybe a court would buy that there's a problem in terms of unequal treatment, but it's sure not obvious to me.
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 19th May 2019, 11:55 AM   #495
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
I'm finding conflicting answers on whether women face prosecution in Georgia. The sponsor of the bill says no, but the fetus is legally a human, and if you participate in killing a human, generally all the plotters are prosecuted. Some may receive leniency for cooperation, but they're usually not entirely off the hook. I also saw the figure "10 years" (vs. 99 for doctors) but I'm not exactly sure where I read it.

I see potential for people falsely accusing doctors.
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 19th May 2019, 12:34 PM   #496
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Solicitation to murder is a crime because there's a law saying so. Another law can carve out an exception to the first law. I just don't see the problem.
Of course it can, but I don't know if the law would stand. But as far as I can tell, there's no explicit "carve out" in the Georgia law. The claim that women could not be punished rests on interpretation of pronouns but that usage is not entirely consistent. More assurance offered up is a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling that absolved a woman for shooting herself in the abdomen, killing the fetus.

Apparently there are laws still to be written that might clarify things, but one big question looms: If fetuses are counted as people, holding women harmless who self-abort would IMO be a MASSIVE constitutional issue. The fetus is a person with human rights, and how can you provide equal protection if it's OK for some people to kill them?

I got frustrated searching around and this seemed like a reasonable link from snopes.com which lists the more dire claims as "unproven." It uses precedents and traditions to speculate that women will not be held liable. But as far as I can tell there is no explicit statement that gets women off the hook. An expert said a woman could be charged. It's just not clear that it would stick.

ETA: I don't mean to browbeat, but I'm baffled that you don't see a problem allowing some people to get away with killing people.

Last edited by Minoosh; 19th May 2019 at 12:41 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 19th May 2019, 12:36 PM   #497
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Oops. Dupe
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 19th May 2019, 12:39 PM   #498
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I'm finding conflicting answers on whether women face prosecution in Georgia. The sponsor of the bill says no, but the fetus is legally a human, and if you participate in killing a human, generally all the plotters are prosecuted. Some may receive leniency for cooperation, but they're usually not entirely off the hook. I also saw the figure "10 years" (vs. 99 for doctors) but I'm not exactly sure where I read it.

I see potential for people falsely accusing doctors.
I'm pretty sure you are conflating the Georgia and Alabama laws. In the case of Alabama law (as of last week), the provider is punishable as a class A felony, which carries a sentence of 10-99 years. The law is absolutely explicit that the woman on whom the abortion is performed faces no punishment and has committed no crime.

Under the Georgia law, anyone who performs an abortion after six weeks (i.e. the law says after the heartbeat, which is basically six weeks) or 20 weeks in the case of rape or incest, has performed an illegal abortion. Illegal abortions carry a penalty of 1 to 10 years under Georgia law. (The new law doesn't change the penalty for illegal abortions. It redefines what constitutes an illegal abortion.)

Where the confusion comes in from the Georgia law is that the Georgia law specifies specific bits of the legal code for Georgia will be changed, but in its introduction, it also talks about the personhood of a fetus. It is from that clause that all of the other hype has been generated, because people start from that and connect the dots, in whatever way they find most convenient to connect the dots. Some people manage to connect the dots in such a way that it ends up calling abortion the crime of murder.

Here's the thing. That particular way of connecting the dots really constitutes coloring outside the lines. Find me a lawyer who says a woman could end up with life in prison for getting an abortion, and I'll show you a lawyer who is receiving payment from an advocacy group, or wants to. It just isn't there. However, there is sufficient ambiguity in the actual words of the statute that we can say exactly who will be charged with exactly what. For example, the idea that women seeking abortions cannot be charged in Georgia is firmly established by legal precedent. However, that's legal precedent, not the actual text of the law. I can easily see a judge, even an appellate judge, saying that the precedent doesn't apply since it was formed under a prior statute, and at a time when Roe v. Wade was a defining precedent for abortion generally. I can easily see a woman being charged under the Georgia law (not the Alabama law, which explicitly says she can't be) for participating in an illegal abortion.

Summary: Give up on the online magazine articles, or the web pages of PACs, or of advocacy groups. Find what lawyers are saying about the laws. You'll find them saying that abortion is not murder, and that the pregnant women (probably) can't be charged in Georgia. I say "probably" because opinion is not unanimous among the authors I have read, even after dismissing the agenda driven authors whose purpose is to stir the pot, as opposed to telling the truth.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 12:45 PM   #499
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
One more thing. A lot of people wonder what the point is of saying the fetus is a person, if not to say that killing one is murder.


It's all about Roe v. Wade. It has been many years since I read the Roe v. Wade decision, so I don't remember it absolutely clearly, but one of the lines of argument used by the court majority was that the rights of the woman clearly overrode the rights of the fetus, because the fetus was not a person. To bolster that judgement, they noted that fetuses weren't counted in the census. Fetuses weren't counted as dependents for tax purposes, etc. Well, the Georgia legislature is trying to shortcut that argument. By declaring the fetus to be a person, complete with all the tax implications, census counts, everything else that they can count the fetus as a person for the purposes of state law, they are stating that under Georgia law, the fetus is a person, and so any consideration of equal rights under the law, as provided by the 14th amendment, must include the fetus among those that have equal rights.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 12:51 PM   #500
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
One final thought.

In recent weeks, four different states have passed four different laws that are clearly in violation of the Roe v. Wade decision, but each is somewhat different.

One of the things abortion rights proponents have been hoping is that the Supreme Court will not simply overturn Roe v. Wade, but will allow restrictions or somehow phrase their opinion in such a way that Roe stays largely intact. With four different laws that violate Roe in four different ways, that becomes nearly impossible. It's almost certain to be all or nothing.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:00 PM   #501
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I'm pretty sure you are conflating the Georgia and Alabama laws.
Nope. I'm talking about Georgia. Killing a fetus is homicide.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
For example, the idea that women seeking abortions cannot be charged in Georgia is firmly established by legal precedent.
The law smashes a boatload of precedents. It's weird to me that you would not see that possibility.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
However, that's legal precedent, not the actual text of the law. I can easily see a judge, even an appellate judge, saying that the precedent doesn't apply since it was formed under a prior statute, and at a time when Roe v. Wade was a defining precedent for abortion generally. I can easily see a woman being charged under the Georgia law (not the Alabama law, which explicitly says she can't be) for participating in an illegal abortion.
Bingo. I must be confused, but you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Summary: Give up on the online magazine articles, or the web pages of PACs, or of advocacy groups.
My lady brain is very poor at evaluating Internet content, so thanks for the tip.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Find what lawyers are saying about the laws. Surely You'll find them saying that abortion is not murder, and that the pregnant women (probably) can't be charged in Georgia.
Yeah, I did that. Abortion is at least homicide if you define a fetus as a human being.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I say "probably" because opinion is not unanimous among the authors I have read, even after dismissing the agenda driven authors whose purpose is to stir the pot, as opposed to telling the truth.
So you agree with me.

Killing a person is the definition of homicide. If you have a different word for it, please share.
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 19th May 2019, 01:07 PM   #502
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,907
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
By declaring the fetus to be a person, complete with all the tax implications, census counts, everything else that they can count the fetus as a person for the purposes of state law, they are stating that under Georgia law, the fetus is a person, and so any consideration of equal rights under the law, as provided by the 14th amendment, must include the fetus among those that have equal rights.
Which is all a load of nonsense and chips since nobody in Georgia or Alabama leadership is putting anything on the table about counting fetuses in the census or given them any other rights under the law.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:09 PM   #503
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Of course it can, but I don't know if the law would stand. But as far as I can tell, there's no explicit "carve out" in the Georgia law. The claim that women could not be punished rests on interpretation of pronouns but that usage is not entirely consistent. More assurance offered up is a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling that absolved a woman for shooting herself in the abdomen, killing the fetus.

Apparently there are laws still to be written that might clarify things, but one big question looms: If fetuses are counted as people, holding women harmless who self-abort would IMO be a MASSIVE constitutional issue. The fetus is a person with human rights, and how can you provide equal protection if it's OK for some people to kill them?
.....
Who says a fetus is a "person," and what rights do you think it has? That is the core of the dispute, and many flatly do not agree. The original laws against abortion were based on protecting the woman and holding a man responsible, not on any claim that a fetus is a person. Beyond that, we recognize that people have rights that belong to them, even at the expense of others. People die every day because they need kidney transplants and can't find donors, even though you have two healthy kidneys (presumably), and it would only be a minor inconvenience for you to be forced to give one up. After all, it would save somebody else's life. You're okay with that, right? Livers regenerate; you could be required to donate half your liver a couple times a year. Great idea, right?

Even if a fetus was a person, it really shouldn't be controversial for a woman to say "I do not choose to share my body, my blood and my health with this person. Please separate him/her/it from me," just as she could if somebody -- even her own child -- grabbed her on the street and said "Gimme your kidney!"

Last edited by Bob001; 19th May 2019 at 01:32 PM.
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 19th May 2019, 01:15 PM   #504
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
.....
Killing a person is the definition of homicide. If you have a different word for it, please share.
"Homicide" is in fact killing a person. But it's not necessarily a crime. A hunting incident might resolved as an accidental homicide. Killing in self-defense can be deemed justifiable homicide. Even if you want to claim that a fetus is a person, you can still accept that the mother's rights have priority over any rights it might have.
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 19th May 2019, 01:26 PM   #505
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Which is all a load of nonsense and chips since nobody in Georgia or Alabama leadership is putting anything on the table about counting fetuses in the census or given them any other rights under the law.
In Georgia, they most specifically are doing exactly that. Well, the federal government runs "the census", i.e. the one we are familiar with that is used to tally up electoral votes. Georgia can't dictate how to do that one. On the other hand, they can count them in population numbers that have to do with state legislative districts, and with state taxes, and with distribution of state funds, and any other state law that deals with counting how many people are in a particular location.

Under this new law, fetuses will be included in every population count that is conducted by the State of Georgia.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:31 PM   #506
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Nope. I'm talking about Georgia. Killing a fetus is homicide.
"99 years" doesn't appear in the Georgia law, but it does in the Alabama law. That's why I'm pretty sure you're conflating the two.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:33 PM   #507
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Who says a fetus is a "person,"...

The legislature of the State of Georgia.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:35 PM   #508
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,907
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In Georgia, they most specifically are doing exactly that. Well, the federal government runs "the census", i.e. the one we are familiar with that is used to tally up electoral votes. Georgia can't dictate how to do that one. On the other hand, they can count them in population numbers that have to do with state legislative districts, and with state taxes, and with distribution of state funds, and any other state law that deals with counting how many people are in a particular location.

Under this new law, fetuses will be included in every population count that is conducted by the State of Georgia.
Call me when they do literally anything to improve the lives of the unborn (or indeed the born) in anyway that's functionally different from punishing women. Until then it's all a meaningless distinction without difference.

They only care about fetuses when caring about fetuses allows them to punish women.

You can't be 50th in education and be super-concerned for the next generation without an ulterior motive.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:46 PM   #509
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Call me when they do literally anything to improve the lives of the unborn (or indeed the born) in anyway that's functionally different from punishing women. Until then it's all a meaningless distinction without difference.

They only care about fetuses when caring about fetuses allows them to punish women.

You can't be 50th in education and be super-concerned for the next generation without an ulterior motive.
You are missing the point.

It's all about Roe v. Wade. That's why the "personhood" stuff is in the law. It isn't about any practical effects that would come about, other than derailing one argument that was used by the court majority in Roe v. Wade.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:49 PM   #510
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,907
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You are missing the point.

It's all about Roe v. Wade. That's why the "personhood" stuff is in the law. It isn't about any practical effects that would come about, other than derailing one argument that was used by the court majority in Roe v. Wade.
I'm well aware of what it's "about." Hell I'm surprised it took this long, I would have figured this would have happened damn near literally the day after Kavanaugh got confirmed.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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 19th May 2019, 01:56 PM   #511
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm well aware of what it's "about." Hell I'm surprised it took this long, I would have figured this would have happened damn near literally the day after Kavanaugh got confirmed.
I was kind of confused about that myself. I might be inclined to believe that it just takes a bit of time to draft legislation and bring it to the floor, but the fact that four states all delivered new laws at almost precisely the same time seems like an odd coincidence.

Regardless, the game is on. They are aiming at Roe and at abortion rights. I think they'll win at the Supreme Court level. I'm not sure what happens after that.
Meadmaker is online now   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 19th May 2019, 02:33 PM   #512
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Who says a fetus is a "person," and what rights do you think it has?
Georgia says the fetus is a person.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
People die every day because they need kidney transplants and can't find donors, even though you have two healthy kidneys (presumably), and it would only be a minor inconvenience for you to be forced to give one up. After all, it would save somebody else's life. You're okay with that, right? Livers regenerate; you could be required to donate half your liver a couple times a year. Great idea, right?
Who do you think you're talking to? I never said any of that stuff.

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Even if a fetus was a person, it really shouldn't be controversial for a woman to say "I do not choose to share my body, my blood and my health with this person. Please separate him/her/it from me," just as she could if somebody -- even her own child -- grabbed her on the street and said "Gimme your kidney!"
Again, I have no idea what you think my position is, but I proposed thinking like this several pages back.
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 19th May 2019, 02:50 PM   #513
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
"99 years" doesn't appear in the Georgia law, but it does in the Alabama law. That's why I'm pretty sure you're conflating the two.
OK. Try to understand. As I indicated, when I searched, I could not find any reference to 99 years; it was a number that had stuck in my mind and I said very clearly that I could not source it at this time. Setting Alabama aside, totally aside, I then focused on Georgia, because Georgia is the one with the personhood statute. Then, on my own, I asserted that the appropriate word for killing another person is homicide. I am 100 percent sure of that, whether Georgia calls it homicide or not.

I'm not sure how condescending you sound when you again propose that I am conflating the two bills.
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 19th May 2019, 02:56 PM   #514
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
"Homicide" is in fact killing a person. But it's not necessarily a crime. A hunting incident might resolved as an accidental homicide. Killing in self-defense can be deemed justifiable homicide. Even if you want to claim that a fetus is a person, you can still accept that the mother's rights have priority over any rights it might have.
Right. I knew that. I'm not sure why you think I didn't.
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 19th May 2019, 03:06 PM   #515
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In Georgia, they most specifically are doing exactly that. Well, the federal government runs "the census", i.e. the one we are familiar with that is used to tally up electoral votes. Georgia can't dictate how to do that one. On the other hand, they can count them in population numbers that have to do with state legislative districts, and with state taxes, and with distribution of state funds, and any other state law that deals with counting how many people are in a particular location.

Under this new law, fetuses will be included in every population count that is conducted by the State of Georgia.
I am not at all sure the Supreme Court will let this stand. In fact, I'm pretty sure it won't.

I could be wrong.
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 19th May 2019, 03:32 PM   #516
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Of course it can, but I don't know if the law would stand. But as far as I can tell, there's no explicit "carve out" in the Georgia law. The claim that women could not be punished rests on interpretation of pronouns but that usage is not entirely consistent. More assurance offered up is a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling that absolved a woman for shooting herself in the abdomen, killing the fetus.

Apparently there are laws still to be written that might clarify things, but one big question looms: If fetuses are counted as people, holding women harmless who self-abort would IMO be a MASSIVE constitutional issue. The fetus is a person with human rights, and how can you provide equal protection if it's OK for some people to kill them?

I got frustrated searching around and this seemed like a reasonable link from snopes.com which lists the more dire claims as "unproven." It uses precedents and traditions to speculate that women will not be held liable. But as far as I can tell there is no explicit statement that gets women off the hook. An expert said a woman could be charged. It's just not clear that it would stick.

ETA: I don't mean to browbeat, but I'm baffled that you don't see a problem allowing some people to get away with killing people.
I never said I'd be okay with a law that lets folks solicit hit men, but there's enough wrong with this law that I don't much care that it criminalizes doctors but not their patients.

I don't know anyone offhand who favors going after doctors but not their patients, outside of this legislature. It's a strange law in that respect, but it's a very bad law for other reasons. I focus on those reasons, not the uncertain side aspects.
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 19th May 2019, 03:33 PM   #517
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
One more thing. A lot of people wonder what the point is of saying the fetus is a person, if not to say that killing one is murder.


It's all about Roe v. Wade. It has been many years since I read the Roe v. Wade decision, so I don't remember it absolutely clearly, but one of the lines of argument used by the court majority was that the rights of the woman clearly overrode the rights of the fetus, because the fetus was not a person. To bolster that judgement, they noted that fetuses weren't counted in the census. Fetuses weren't counted as dependents for tax purposes, etc. Well, the Georgia legislature is trying to shortcut that argument. By declaring the fetus to be a person, complete with all the tax implications, census counts, everything else that they can count the fetus as a person for the purposes of state law, they are stating that under Georgia law, the fetus is a person, and so any consideration of equal rights under the law, as provided by the 14th amendment, must include the fetus among those that have equal rights.
I don't think you're right that the court said the fetus wasn't a person.

I was mistaken. They said this.

Quote:
All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
Thus, the meaning of person in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include fetuses.

Last edited by phiwum; 19th May 2019 at 04:38 PM.
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 19th May 2019, 03:56 PM   #518
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,761
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Regardless, the game is on. They are aiming at Roe and at abortion rights. I think they'll win at the Supreme Court level. I'm not sure what happens after that.
What happens next for abortion, or the SC? I expect every red state is drawing up plans to outlaw it the moment it becomes possible.

As for the SC, assuming Kavanaugh passes this loyalty test, at a minimum we're looking at a new Jim Crow era. The GOP is well aware they can win with only the deplorable vote and a bit of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement, so they will move to solidify that position.
Beelzebuddy 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 19th May 2019, 04:32 PM   #519
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post

ETA: I don't mean to browbeat, but I'm baffled that you don't see a problem allowing some people to get away with killing people.
I'd like to return to this comment.

Here's a law that criminalizes abortion, punishing doctors who perform it. Surely, your main concern isn't that it lets women off the hook, so why so much attention to that part?

As well, what I have said here is that I don't see a clear argument that the focus on doctors to the exclusion of patients is unconstitutional. You do understand that it doesn't mean I "don't see a problem"?
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 19th May 2019, 04:51 PM   #520
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't think you're right that the court said the fetus wasn't a person.

I was mistaken. They said this.



Thus, the meaning of person in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include fetuses.
Exactly. I also suspect that if you were to look at "all this" referred to in the opinion, it would be very specifically the things found in the Georgia law. I think the Georgia law provisions were aimed, specifically, at undermining the argument that they used, the conclusion of which you quoted in your post.
Meadmaker is online now   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 07:31 AM.
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.