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 15th May 2019, 03:01 PM   #201
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I hope there is more to the story than the headline.
There was.

The woman applied for food stamps and that triggered an automatic case to force the father to pay child support. Visitation went with that but the father wasn't seeking visitation.

Bad thing was the court released the vic's address to the rapist. That did suck, plus the fact all this was triggered by automatic processes with no one using their head to consider the case realistically.

The state needs a new law and so do a lot of other states I imagine.
__________________
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 15th May 2019, 03:17 PM   #202
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,407
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I see your problem, you want these women sluts charged with murder.
Fixed that for him.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 15th May 2019, 03:27 PM   #203
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 505
9 minutes ago on CNN:

Quote:
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law a controversial abortion bill that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.

"Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature," said Ivey, a Republican, in a statement. "To the bill's many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God."

...

Ivey noted in her statement that the new law may be unenforceable due to the Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. But, the new law was passed with the aim of challenging that decision, Ivey said.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose 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 15th May 2019, 03:51 PM   #204
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I'm pretty shocked that someone who has been participating so much in this thread still hasn't bothered to become certain about what is in these laws, proposed or passed.
I was going to look it up, but I thought about it, and realized I didn't need to. Trying to verify it is about as interesting as that thread in conspiracy theories that I was in for a while where I and others were trying to convince someone rockets worked in space.

I know that the issue in question (sorry folks, you'll have to follow the links backwards to see what it was) is ok, and abortion would be legal in that situation, even under Alabama's new law. If anyone cares to look it up, feel free. I don't need to.


And really, I don't need to look up much of anything on this. I checked out the Georgia law, and dug into it and all that.

The legal situation in the US right now is fairly clear. As of today, abortion is legal everywhere. With the passage of laws in Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, and pending legislation elsewhere, it will be up to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to decide whether it stays that way. If they vote no, it will be up to voters what happens next. There will be lots of fights among state legislators about which states will keep it legal. If one of them votes yes, then the next presidential and senate races will be all about whether Trump gets one more Supreme Court Justice, so we can try again. (ETA: "We can try again" as in "It will all start again. I didn't want to include myself in the group of people trying to outlaw abortion. It's just that we will all be caught up in the fight.)

In the meantime, the situation with abortion will revert back to what it was in 1972, except that more states will have it legal, more places in the world will have it legal, and public opinion generally will have shifted to the left on the subject. (I don't know how many states it was legal in 1972, but I don't think it was many, and it was generally unpopular.)



Abortion has been an ever present, but back burner, issue for all of my adult lifetime. It's being moved to the front burner very soon. Therefore, it's very important to shape up your persuasion skills if you care about this issue. What do you think will work best? Let's try out one argument:


"The Republicans have been swamped by a Christian cabal that wants to execute sluts, and bring women back to property status! It's all in the bills they just passed in Georgia!"


Run that one past the focus group. See how it flies. See if it changes once they actually get to read the bill, or hear from someone willing to explain the contents.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 15th May 2019 at 04:03 PM.
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 15th May 2019, 03:58 PM   #205
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,643
Maybe Las Vegas will be the place to go to get an abortion. You can be an atheist there too. They have flights to Vegas around the clock.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 15th May 2019, 04:22 PM   #206
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,643
The way to fight this is to double the number of abortions in other states. You fight it tooth and nail. When they duck, you go high. When they give birth, you abort. It's that simple.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 15th May 2019, 04:25 PM   #207
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,481
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I totally agree that there is some controversy over what the law entails. I'd say that Planned Parenthood is not biased in favor of the Georgia law, so I regard the statements of that group to be pretty reliable.

The quote you posted was misleadlingly excerpted. The whole sentence reads, "Georgia’s law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgia’s penal code which have specific defenses for women, including those who miscarry."

You said that you saw no reason women who miscarry couldn't be prosecuted. Evidently, legal experts believe there's a very good reason, namely that there are specific defenses for women. I do not know the details of those defenses, so I won't say for certain that's an overwhelming reason, but it's a reason.
As to the highlighted bit, I think that Stern addressed that adequately in his response. Here's the link again:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-horrific.html

Further, an assertion that vague carries little weight. Who are these "legal experts" and which "areas" of the penal code are they referring to? In the Stern article it says:

Quote:
This law, he points out, states that “nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of … [a]ny woman with respect to her unborn child.” French seems to believe that this immunity extends to any woman who ends her own pregnancy. But note the limiting language: “Nothing in this Code section” can be used to punish women “with respect to” her fetus. The law does not grant pregnant women immunity from prosecution under all circumstances; it grants immunity exclusively with regard to the feticide statute. Other sections of the code can still be used to prosecute women—like the newly enacted provisions of HB 481.
The immunity is not a blanket immunity but only applies to a specific section of the law. It explicitly does not apply to other code sections, including the new law.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 15th May 2019, 05:36 PM   #208
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If she deliberately takes it for the purpose of inducing a miscarriage, after the point of fetal heartbeat, yes. If it's a side effect of a drug that is prescribed for some other condition, no.
How do you know that? You are adding your bias when the people writing this law clearly want to threaten pregnant women under any circumstance.


First off, let's just drop this heartbeat charade. Scientists have successfully grown human heart tissue in a lab dish.
Quote:
The tiny tissues are actual beating heart muscles created from stem cells.
IOW, a single cardiac cell beats.

Georgia law: "once a heartbeat is detected in the womb, which happens around six weeks."

If the wording is, "once a heartbeat is detected", then all it will take is new technology to detect that heartbeat earlier.

Gestational Age Week 6 (Fetal Age: 4 Weeks) Gestation starts at the end of the last menses. The fetal age starts with implantation. At this point the woman has not missed a period. So unless one is talking about the morning after pill, there is no opportunity for abortion because once the fetus is detected, it's too late for all practical purposes.

Quote:
Between 5 ˝ to 6 ˝ weeks, a fetal pole or even a fetal heartbeat may be detected by vaginal ultrasound. The fetal pole is the first visible sign of a developing embryo. ...

... The fetal pole may be seen at a crown-rump length (CRL) of 2-4mm, and the heartbeat may be seen as a regular flutter when the CRL has reached 5mm.
Four mm is about half your thumb nail. A "flutter" is not a functioning heart. But that's a detectable heart.

Quote:
Gestational Age Week 8 & 9 (Fetal Age: 6-7 Weeks)
By this point in the pregnancy, everything that is present in an adult human is present in the developing embryo. The embryo has reached the end of the embryonic stage and now enters the fetal stage. A strong fetal heartbeat should be detectable by ultrasound, with a heartbeat of 140-170 bpm by the 9th week.
The point of using "heartbeat" is simply to frame the clump of cells as a living human. It's not quite as effective to say the implanted zygote is a 'person'.


Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
There's a bit of a grey area there, as there often is in new laws. If a doctor prescribed a drug that was guaranteed or extremely likely to induce miscarriage, knowing that a woman was pregnant, but there was a legitimate reason for the drug, could he be prosecuted? I think possibly, unless the condition for the prescription was life threatening. As others have pointed out, there is some doubt about whether any pregnant woman could be prosecuted under this law, or only the provider. To me, it looks like the law would allow prosecution of the woman, but existing court precedent says no. Would a future court decide that the precedent held for the new law? Answering questions like those is what lawyers are for.
Precedent? You mean like Roe v Wade? Just what precedent are you referring to?

There's a lot of speculation in this thread, defining the law and consequences in ways that fit people's beliefs about the humane courts balancing the women's needs, not at all oppressive of this slut that allowed herself to get pregnant.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The point is that this law is very deliberately aimed at making abortion criminal. We all know what abortion means. It means deliberately ending pregnancy, i.e. terminating the existence of a fetus. We don't have to invent other stuff.
Yes, exactly. So why did you invent stuff in your post about how the law wouldn't be used to punish those sluts?


Anti-abortionist want this law to make sense, just protecting life, whatever. So let's just describe it that way all white-washed and pretty.

Let's not describe it as denying women the right to make their own medical decisions. Let's not describe it as forcing the woman to risk her life for the fetus while the man is not required to do any such thing. Let's make sure the woman bears the sole responsibility for the pregnancy even when incest and rape are involved. Are we back to the, "she shouldn't have worn that short skirt" mentality?

BTW, guess which state has the highest maternal mortality?
Quote:
Maternal Mortality
U.S. Value: : 20.7

Healthiest State: California: 4.5

Least-healthy State: Georgia: 46.2
Alabama isn't that bad. (11.9)
__________________
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 15th May 2019, 06:01 PM   #209
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Well formed yoke sack really. But that medical specificity doesn't translate well into emotionally manipulating voters, like the political term "partial birth abortion"
Exactly.
__________________
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 15th May 2019, 06:48 PM   #210
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
When my grandmother was diagnosed with a spine injury that needed immediate surgery back in the early 1930's, she was also discovered to be pregnant. The doctors told her that if she carried the baby to term she would almost certainly spend the rest of her life paralyzed and in a wheelchair. She was allowed to have a legal abortion, a rare occurrence in those days. As her life itself was not in danger, I wonder if she would be allowed under AL's new law to have that abortion.
It would not be allowed in a Catholic hospital no matter the state. We're having problems like that here in WA State because the Catholic hospitals are merging with all the other hospitals and they insist on their Catholic rules.
__________________
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 15th May 2019, 07:04 PM   #211
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
So glad to see that America's Dred-Scott 2.0 might actually go the way of justice!
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 07:04 PM   #212
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
9 minutes ago on CNN:
Quote:
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Wednesday signed into law a controversial abortion bill that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.
Which brings up an important point, how many doctors are going to think twice about performing an abortion to save the life of the mother if said doctor fears potential prosecution?

In fact, it wouldn't be a surprise if some OBGYNs choose not to do surgery at all on some women. They might be a a position to risk a lawsuit if the woman dies and go to jail if some jury or judge decides the abortion was not necessary to save said woman.
__________________
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 15th May 2019, 07:13 PM   #213
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,096
Here is a link to an actual (much larger than life-sized) photo of your 4-week embryo. It doesn't so much have a heart as it has cardiac cells that have begun to twitch. The brain has barely begun to develop from the neural tube. And as Ginger pointed out, it's about half the size of your thumbnail.

Yet we're saying that this has more rights than the woman it's currently inhabiting?
deadrose 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 15th May 2019, 07:16 PM   #214
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I'm pretty shocked that someone who has been participating so much in this thread still hasn't bothered to become certain about what is in these laws, proposed or passed.
Meadmaker has primarily been discussing the Georgia law. His recent post is an exception, but he clearly and appropriately mentioned his ignorance of the law.

I am even more ignorant, relying on information from the Washington Post and not taking the time to read any of the laws.
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 15th May 2019, 07:18 PM   #215
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
So... which is it ?
Meadmaker was speaking in broad terms, not about threats from just the law. He seems to view sex as rather more dangerous than I do. One of us (or both[1]) may be doing it wrong.

[1] Separately, not jointly.
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 15th May 2019, 07:22 PM   #216
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Delete
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 15th May 2019, 07:22 PM   #217
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by deadrose View Post
Yet we're saying that this has more rights than the woman it's currently inhabiting?
No. We're saying this human being has as much a right to life as the woman impregnated with her, and unless the mere existence of this human being poses a threat to the life of the woman nourishing her, then you have no plausible right to terminate that person's life.
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 07:28 PM   #218
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
As to the highlighted bit, I think that Stern addressed that adequately in his response. Here's the link again:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-horrific.html

Further, an assertion that vague carries little weight. Who are these "legal experts" and which "areas" of the penal code are they referring to? In the Stern article it says:



The immunity is not a blanket immunity but only applies to a specific section of the law. It explicitly does not apply to other code sections, including the new law.
Okay, I'll be satisfied with the conclusion that some experts disagree on whether women can be prosecuted under this law. I tend to weight the opinion of the Planned Parenthood spokesperson fairly high, but I don't know her position offhand.

I think that when there are controversies over the consequences of the law and the primary literal intention is bad enough, we should focus on how the primary literal intention is bad rather than on how much worse it might be if some people are right.
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 15th May 2019, 07:30 PM   #219
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
No. We're saying this human being has as much a right to life as the woman impregnated with her, and unless the mere existence of this human being poses a threat to the life of the woman nourishing her, then you have no plausible right to terminate that person's life.
Right.

The traditional argument is that a right to life outweighs a woman's right to choose what happens in her body, because life is more fundamental and valuable. It's not that the fetus has more rights, but that the right of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman under consideration.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that the fetus has a right to life. Just presenting the standard argument as it's usually understood.
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 15th May 2019, 07:41 PM   #220
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
It's not that the fetus has more rights, but that the right of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman under consideration.
I don't want to speak for all pro-life people, but since this discussion frequently gets dominated by religious people against atheists I feel compelled to. I'm a gay, atheist, pro-life, man (judge me as you will).

It's not even that the "right(s) of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman", rather that I'm judging the quality of one right to another. The right to life of one individual will always outweigh the right to convenience of another. The vast majority of abortions in the developed world are those of convenience. Those that aren't can be easily classified into those that involve biological necessity (i.e. woman's compromised health, deformity of birth, etc.), and those that involve psychological necessity ("I was raped!", "Dad is no longer in the picture!", "What will my family think!?", etc.) While I sympathize with those of the latter category, I cannot in good faith support their desire to murder their offspring.
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 08:08 PM   #221
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,043
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
I don't want to speak for all pro-life people, but since this discussion frequently gets dominated by religious people against atheists I feel compelled to. I'm a gay, atheist, pro-life, man (judge me as you will).

It's not even that the "right(s) of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman", rather that I'm judging the quality of one right to another. The right to life of one individual will always outweigh the right to convenience of another. The vast majority of abortions in the developed world are those of convenience. Those that aren't can be easily classified into those that involve biological necessity (i.e. woman's compromised health, deformity of birth, etc.), and those that involve psychological necessity ("I was raped!", "Dad is no longer in the picture!", "What will my family think!?", etc.) While I sympathize with those of the latter category, I cannot in good faith support their desire to murder their offspring.
Being atheist your belief isn't religious or soul based.

Are you vegan? If not, can you explain why terminating the previously described clump of unformed cells is murder but terminating a fully formed living thing is okay?
The_Animus 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 15th May 2019, 08:43 PM   #222
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
I don't know how you can imprison doctors but not go after the person who put a hit on the fetus.
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 15th May 2019, 08:44 PM   #223
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Being atheist your belief isn't religious or soul based.

Are you vegan? If not, can you explain why terminating the previously described clump of unformed cells is murder but terminating a fully formed living thing is okay?
No I am not a vegan. Just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean I believe that all animal species are worthy of moral consideration, or even the same moral consideration as individuals who moralize like me (a human). Call me a speciesist as you want but I firmly believe that H. Sapiens is in a category of moral consideration outside of all other species, and we must include all members of this species including those who are "developmentally challenged", be them fetuses or the mentally retarded.
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 08:46 PM   #224
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,643
Isn't there also an argument path for ensuring that each human gets the best possible world we can give them? Being born unwanted, unloved and uncared for is better than not being born at all?
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey 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 15th May 2019, 08:47 PM   #225
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,481
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Okay, I'll be satisfied with the conclusion that some experts disagree on whether women can be prosecuted under this law. I tend to weight the opinion of the Planned Parenthood spokesperson fairly high, but I don't know her position offhand.

I think that when there are controversies over the consequences of the law and the primary literal intention is bad enough, we should focus on how the primary literal intention is bad rather than on how much worse it might be if some people are right.
You're right though: the hyperbole is a distraction from what we should really be focusing on, which is that this law will severely restrict access to abortion if allowed to stand. Even if it only applies to doctors. The scaremongering could actually be counterproductive here for opponents of the law, of which I count myself one.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 15th May 2019, 08:51 PM   #226
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,481
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
I don't want to speak for all pro-life people, but since this discussion frequently gets dominated by religious people against atheists I feel compelled to. I'm a gay, atheist, pro-life, man (judge me as you will).

It's not even that the "right(s) of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman", rather that I'm judging the quality of one right to another. The right to life of one individual will always outweigh the right to convenience of another. The vast majority of abortions in the developed world are those of convenience. Those that aren't can be easily classified into those that involve biological necessity (i.e. woman's compromised health, deformity of birth, etc.), and those that involve psychological necessity ("I was raped!", "Dad is no longer in the picture!", "What will my family think!?", etc.) While I sympathize with those of the latter category, I cannot in good faith support their desire to murder their offspring.
No one is asking you to support it. But you have no standing to make that choice for another person. Will you raise an unwanted child who is the result of rape at your own expense if its mother comes to your door and says "here, this child is your problem now"?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 15th May 2019, 08:53 PM   #227
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,509
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
I don't want to speak for all pro-life people, but since this discussion frequently gets dominated by religious people against atheists I feel compelled to. I'm a gay, atheist, pro-life, man (judge me as you will).

It's not even that the "right(s) of the fetus under consideration is more significant than the right of the woman", rather that I'm judging the quality of one right to another. The right to life of one individual will always outweigh the right to convenience of another. The vast majority of abortions in the developed world are those of convenience. Those that aren't can be easily classified into those that involve biological necessity (i.e. woman's compromised health, deformity of birth, etc.), and those that involve psychological necessity ("I was raped!", "Dad is no longer in the picture!", "What will my family think!?", etc.) While I sympathize with those of the latter category, I cannot in good faith support their desire to murder their offspring.
At what point should a woman lose the rights over her own health, and reproduction?
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 15th May 2019, 08:58 PM   #228
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
No one is asking you to support it. But you have no standing to make that choice for another person.
I have the obligation to stand up for the right of that other person to live. That's my duty as a moral being.
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 08:58 PM   #229
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,004
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Meadmaker was speaking in broad terms, not about threats from just the law. He seems to view sex as rather more dangerous than I do. One of us (or both[1]) may be doing it wrong.

[1] Separately, not jointly.


Yeah, the comment probably didn't make much sense to a lot of people, and it certainly isn't all that relevant to the discussion. I was just struck by the interesting idea that the riskiest element of having sex was that there might be a law against aborting the resulting offspring. Between pregnancy, death during childbirth, the possibility of marriage and children, and the inherent risk of being naked and alone with a man and no witnesses, sex sounds pretty risky even before you throw this law into the mix.


(And I really had heard that song I mentioned for the first time in it must be about 25 years, so it was fresh in my memory. Kipling was an interesting fellow. I suppose he isn't studied as much now as when I was in school. Both racist and sexist, to be sure, and so homophobic that he never even mentioned the possibility. And yet, there's a certain realism to his poems.)


But, to reiterate the main point, these laws really are a threat to the way we live today. If you believe a woman should have the right to abortion, now is the time to write your state legislator or do whatever other actions might help preserve that right. However, whether your audience is state senator, or your neighbor, you'll be taken more seriously if you don't sound like a raving lunatic when you talk about pending legislation. Just leave the "death penalty" talk out of it. Most of those legislators are lawyers. They can figure out what the laws actually say.
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 15th May 2019, 08:59 PM   #230
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,407
Birth. Her own.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 15th May 2019, 09:00 PM   #231
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
At what point should a woman lose the rights over her own health, and reproduction?
A woman (or any other person for that matter) does not lose her rights to choose what to do with her own healthcare.

Her right to bodily autonomy does not grant her the right to kill another human being without just cause.
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 09:01 PM   #232
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,407
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Birth. Her own.
That was meant as a reply to "at what point should a woman lose all rights?", of course.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 15th May 2019, 09:04 PM   #233
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,509
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
A woman (or any other person for that matter) does not lose her rights to choose what to do with her own healthcare.

Her right to bodily autonomy does not grant her the right to kill another human being without just cause.
However, your claims that she should not be able to abort, does indeed strip her of rights over her own healthcare, and bodily autonomy.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 15th May 2019, 09:09 PM   #234
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
However, your claims that she should not be able to abort, does indeed strip her of rights over her own healthcare, and bodily autonomy.
It strips her of her "right" to kill the human being gestating inside her.
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 09:15 PM   #235
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,509
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
It strips her of her "right" to kill the human being gestating inside her.
Which, until viable, is essentially a parasite, and a part of her body. You want to strip her rights, and freedoms.

Someone out there is in desperate need of a transplant that you could provide. They will die without a transplant. We'll take one of your organs. There are a couple you can spare. You wouldn't want to deny someone life, would you?
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 15th May 2019, 09:29 PM   #236
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
Which, until viable, is essentially a parasite, and a part of her body.
Allow me to put the 'E' in the (former) JREF:

Parasites are organisms of one species that take advantage of the individual of another species in resource acquisition. Zygotes/fetuses/et.al. are not parasites since they are of the same species of the so-called "host". Indeed, they're not only the same species but they share 50% of the DNA as they're the... wait for it... OFFSPRING of the "host". There isn't a biologist worth her salt who would ever refer to the mitotic cell reproduction of a bacterium as a "parasite", nor would she say that of a germinated fruit developing into a new tree. Offspring =/= parasites. Ergo, human zygotes/fetuses are not parasites.


Quote:
Someone out there is in desperate need of a transplant that you could provide. They will die without a transplant. We'll take one of your organs. There are a couple you can spare. You wouldn't want to deny someone life, would you?
Like most pro-choicers you completely miss the point. It's not that life is being denied, rather that life is actively being snuffed out. The truly analogous situation you should've cited was one of a potential transplant patient waiting for a transplant and because I'm not willing to give them my, say, kidney, I pull out a gun a shoot them in the head. Actively choosing to kill a gestating human without any moral justification is murder.

Last edited by The Nimble Pianist; 15th May 2019 at 09:30 PM.
The Nimble Pianist 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 15th May 2019, 09:38 PM   #237
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 4,509
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
Allow me to put the 'E' in the (former) JREF:

Parasites are organisms of one species that take advantage of the individual of another species in resource acquisition. Zygotes/fetuses/et.al. are not parasites since they are of the same species of the so-called "host". Indeed, they're not only the same species but they share 50% of the DNA as they're the... wait for it... OFFSPRING of the "host". There isn't a biologist worth her salt who would ever refer to the mitotic cell reproduction of a bacterium as a "parasite", nor would she say that of a germinated fruit developing into a new tree. Offspring =/= parasites. Ergo, human zygotes/fetuses are not parasites.
For a number of intents and purposes, it may as well be. Moreso if it is unwanted, or could cause active harm to the woman.

Quote:
Like most pro-choicers you completely miss the point. It's not that life is being denied, rather that life is actively being snuffed out. The truly analogous situation you should've cited was one of a potential transplant patient waiting for a transplant and because I'm not willing to give them my, say, kidney, I pull out a gun a shoot them in the head. Actively choosing to kill a gestating human without any moral justification is murder.
Like most forced-birth advocates, you are also missing the point. You want to actively DENY the rights and freedoms a person would otherwise enjoy. You would deny life from another person, citing your freedoms, but deny a woman the ability to abort a fetus that in all likelyhood isn't any bigger than a fingertip.

There are many other ways to reduce the rate of abortions that do not strip rights and freedoms from a person. Which is why I'm pro-choice, personal feelings aside. It SHOULD only ever be a decision between the woman, and her doctor.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 15th May 2019, 09:38 PM   #238
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,481
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
I have the obligation to stand up for the right of that other person to live. That's my duty as a moral being.
And will you pay her hospital bill and the cost of all her doctor's visits? And take responsibility for raising the child once it's born?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 15th May 2019, 09:45 PM   #239
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
Isn't there also an argument path for ensuring that each human gets the best possible world we can give them? Being born unwanted, unloved and uncared for is better than not being born at all?
This. Babies have a right to be wanted. So if a woman wants to end a pregnancy, so be it. It's true that a fertilized egg contains the genetic blueprint of a unique individual (identical twins excepted), but that's a very inclusive definition of personhood.

A couple of years ago a caller to the Dave Ramsey Show asked about going into debt for IVF. A lot of people who listen to the show are evangelical Christians. Some have gone through a few hoops to justify creating more than one zygote. Someone quoted the Bible (OT, Jeremiah) which basically says, "I knew you in your mother's womb." (Translations vary.) Someone on a blog opined that because the zygotes were not formed in the womb, fertilizing extra eggs in a Petri dish or whatever was OK. I also think it's fairly common practice to implant more than one zygote in the uterus with the understanding that there will be an option to cull some embryos.

I argued with a forum member here who claimed that there were plenty of loving, stable would-be parents to adopt every kid in need. He did not provide any evidence.

I also find these laws very patronizing. Don't worry, little lady, we won't come after you. Just the mean doctor who forced you to get an abortion.

Last edited by Minoosh; 15th May 2019 at 09:47 PM. Reason: typos
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 15th May 2019, 10:13 PM   #240
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,170
Every sperm is different.
Therefore, masturbation is murder.
__________________
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 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.