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 21st May 2019, 09:50 AM   #561
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Right. But I can't just order those drugs over the internet, which is what you originally referred to.
Yes you can. Or, correction: Maybe you can't, but a woman of childbearing age could. Or could a few months ago. There are overseas doctors doing online evaluations, writing the script and shipping the drugs. Is this legal? That's "fuzzy." There are probably people of conscience doing it in the U.S. as well.

Mail-Order Abortions Are Now Available in the U.S. What Does That Mean for American Women?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The original question was whether there would be investigations by prosecutors following miscarriages. In a situation like the above, the investigation would consist of a simple check of the doctor's records. Was there a medical reason for ordering the drugs? Yes? No problem. No? Crime.
The medical application of these drugs is quite narrow. Also I note how casually you say "a simple check of doctor's records" could justify its use. That means there's already an investigation.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
"Murky prosecutorial discretion" is a legitimate fear. ... However, as murky as it is, it's not all that murky ...
There you go again.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
... and any attempt to prosecute would be thrown out on appeal if not right away.
In a federal appeals court, probably. In Georgia?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The law establishes that a specific act is a specific crime with a specific penalty. If some prosecutor were to say, "Aha! But it also says this other thing in this other section so I can actually prosecute for some other crime that carries a much harsher penalty!" it would be thrown out.
Oh jeebus. What is going on with you?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Of course, in the meantime someone would have had to spend a zillion dollars in lawyer fees and possibly spend time in jail before it was thrown out on appeal, so that's not a lot of comfort.
Prison would be more likely than jail if you're convicted of a felony. But I salute you for acknowledging that your scenario is "not a lot of comfort."
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 21st May 2019, 09:59 AM   #562
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The purpose of personhood bills is to ban abortion and treat all abortions as murder. I don't understand why Meadmaker refuses to see this fact.
That's the purpose, but the effect could go even farther than that. More scrutiny could be focused on the behavior of all women of childbearing age.
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 21st May 2019, 10:06 AM   #563
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,903
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Oh jeebus. What is going on with you?
Sorry. It won't happen again.
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 21st May 2019, 11:17 AM   #564
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
It's conceivable that the SJC would decide fetuses are persons, but not likely. Far more likely is that they decide more narrowly that abortion laws and personhood status be left to the states.
On what basis do you assert "it's far more likely"? I don't know how the Supreme Court could justify giving the unborn Fourteenth Amendment rights in Georgia, but not in other states. That's just not how it works.

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Drunk driving is a serious offense but rarely caught. The obvious way to catch more folks driving drunk is to require breathalyzers in every car with results uploaded to a central registry. We don't do that and it is nigh inconceivable that the surveillance you suggest would pass a laugh test in the courts.
There's a better public-policy justification for requiring ignition locks than there is for banning abortion (unless fetuses are members of the public).

And ... if all cars had these devices, wouldn't it prevent drunk driving? It probably wouldn't have to go to a central database - just getting the info would deter a lot of drivers.

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
You simply go way, way too far in your concerns.
How far should I go? All I'm doing is fact-checking and looking for fallacious arguments. It's taken a few hours, but I've learned a lot.

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Agreed, though I'd guess that most folks on the pro-life side would embrace the personhood issue.
So might the Supreme Court. And for the zillionth time (sorry), I've not seen a counterargument on why a SC ruling on personhood would not become the law of the land.
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 21st May 2019, 01:56 PM   #565
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,442
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
On what basis do you assert "it's far more likely"? I don't know how the Supreme Court could justify giving the unborn Fourteenth Amendment rights in Georgia, but not in other states. That's just not how it works.
The 14th Amendment grants rights to persons within a jurisdiction. Georgia is proposing expanding the set of persons, not restricting it. I don't see any contradiction in claiming that states are free to increase their obligation required by the 14th Amendment.

In general, the Supreme Court aims for decisions on narrower, rather than wider, grounds. This is why I think it's far more likely for them to allow the Georgia bill to stand (or even to strike down the personhood section while allowing the remainder of the bill to stand) rather than say, hey, know what? Fetuses are persons and every state must recognize that.

Allowing the outlawing of abortion strikes me as unlikely, though not implausible. It strikes me as nearly unthinkable that the Court would require every state to adopt the same conditions on personhood.

Quote:
There's a better public-policy justification for requiring ignition locks than there is for banning abortion (unless fetuses are members of the public).

And ... if all cars had these devices, wouldn't it prevent drunk driving? It probably wouldn't have to go to a central database - just getting the info would deter a lot of drivers.
Er, right. And no state does any of that, even though there's an argument in its favor. Why not? Because it wouldn't stand up in Court. It would be a clear violation of privacy.

So would any attempts to surveil use of pregnancy tests, a medical need, for gosh sake. It just won't happen.

Let's focus on the clearly very bad thing that the bill explicitly does. It outlaws abortion. It does not call for monitoring the purchase of pregnancy tests.

Quote:
How far should I go? All I'm doing is fact-checking and looking for fallacious arguments. It's taken a few hours, but I've learned a lot.

So might the Supreme Court. And for the zillionth time (sorry), I've not seen a counterargument on why a SC ruling on personhood would not become the law of the land.
The Court has the power to make it the law of the land, but it is a drastic step. Seems to me there is no contradiction in allowing states to proclaim fetuses are persons without requiring states to do so. Logically speaking, the latter cannot be more likely than the former (but it would be just as likely if there were a contradiction). Realistically speaking, I simply can't imagine the Court going so far at this time.
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 21st May 2019, 02:47 PM   #566
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,408
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Meadmaker's point is quite the opposite. He wants abortion to be legal. He doesn't think that the case is helped when people exaggerate what's at stake. There's a serious push to make abortion illegal. There is no push to monitor pregnancy test results.
But there's an assumption there that no one would turn these women in. Most people who get abortions don't do it in secret. Maybe they wouldn't go public, but friends and/or family would be involved most of the time.
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 03:09 PM   #567
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,442
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
But there's an assumption there that no one would turn these women in. Most people who get abortions don't do it in secret. Maybe they wouldn't go public, but friends and/or family would be involved most of the time.
That's not the point I was responding to.

As well, it is unclear whether the Georgia bill could be used to prosecute women who received an abortion. A spokeswoman (or whatever her role is, the article didn't say or I missed it) for Planned Parenthood said it could not. Others suggest it can. It is perhaps a risk, but not a certainty.
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 21st May 2019, 03:25 PM   #568
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I talk to Trump supporters. More importantly, I listen to Trump supporters.

Oh, you mean the Trump supporters that have been brainwashed to believe there's a War on Christmas? LOL!
Cabbage 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 21st May 2019, 03:29 PM   #569
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Meadmaker's point is quite the opposite. He wants abortion to be legal. He doesn't think that the case is helped when people exaggerate what's at stake. There's a serious push to make abortion illegal. There is no push to monitor pregnancy test results.
Sincere question: How else do you handle getting your message across when your opponent is damned determined to do their own exaggerations of what's at stake? How do you win the narrative back?

Oh, and I'm specifically thinking of the current climate when so many of us refuse to listen to anything they don't already believe in.

Last edited by Cabbage; 21st May 2019 at 03:31 PM.
Cabbage 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 21st May 2019, 03:33 PM   #570
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,843
Because as we all know, China and India aborting their way to demographic catastrophe has ensured a golden age of gender equality, right? Right?
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman 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 21st May 2019, 03:53 PM   #571
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Because as we all know, China and India aborting their way to demographic catastrophe has ensured a golden age of gender equality, right? Right?
I'm not aware of anyone in the United States proposing forced abortions (such as in China).
Cabbage 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 21st May 2019, 03:59 PM   #572
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,843
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I'm not aware of anyone in the United States proposing forced abortions (such as in China).
No, it's more the belief that abortion empowers women by itself, except the demographic pressures both countries face have fuelled ultranationalist sentiment (when there are disproportionately more men than women due to sex selective abortions, that's alarm bells ringing!)
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman 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 21st May 2019, 04:12 PM   #573
AnonyMoose
Critical Thinker
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I'm not aware of anyone in the United States proposing forced abortions (such as in China).

Nor is the US proposing forced abortions on just a specific gender to purposefully increase one side of the gender demographic (more males, less females).

But apparently, comparing India and China's reproductive situations with the current situation happening in the US is a sound, highly logical analogy.

__________________
"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 21st May 2019, 05:05 PM   #574
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,408
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
No, it's more the belief that abortion empowers women by itself, except the demographic pressures both countries face have fuelled ultranationalist sentiment (when there are disproportionately more men than women due to sex selective abortions, that's alarm bells ringing!)
Abortion doesn't empower women, empowered women make their own choice about their own bodies.

Comparing cultures where female children are aborted or killed because women are treated like chattel is actually evidence supporting pro-choice but something tells me you can't connect those dots.
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 05:25 PM   #575
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Sincere question: How else do you handle getting your message across when your opponent is damned determined to do their own exaggerations of what's at stake? How do you win the narrative back?

Oh, and I'm specifically thinking of the current climate when so many of us refuse to listen to anything they don't already believe in.
It's a possible irony in my case that I have never been unreservedly pro-choice. I usually don't participate in these kinds of arguments. But this combination of bills galls me.

There's a national effort afoot to float different restrictions in different legislatures to find out what will stick. Evangelicals can really be salt-of-the-earth people but they aren't ... evidence-based. And I think public policy should be evidence-based, because if we're going to restrict individual rights, let's do it in an intelligent way, to make sure Bill X is really the fix for Problem Y. The reason these bills irk me so much is their stupidity. So I attack the most stupid provisions - not the concept of restrictions.

Wanting to outlaw abortion because fetuses are people is at least a consistent position. Trying to do that while holding women harmless is not. From what I've read, Georgia's law is more consistent than Alabama's, but they took pains to make it look like abortion would be available before 6 weeks. But any medical practitioner who performed one would be killing a person under that state's laws. People pretending this isn't true drives me bonkers. "Fetal heartbeat" may sound reasonable (ETA: to some people), but the way the law is written, the personhood definition does not depend on the fetal heartbeat. The definition exempts embryos in Petri dishes. I wonder why.

Last edited by Minoosh; 21st May 2019 at 05:35 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 21st May 2019, 05:27 PM   #576
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
No, it's more the belief that abortion empowers women by itself, except the demographic pressures both countries face have fuelled ultranationalist sentiment (when there are disproportionately more men than women due to sex selective abortions, that's alarm bells ringing!)
Oh, so totally different from the situation in the US.

Thanks for sharing!
Cabbage 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 21st May 2019, 05:34 PM   #577
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's a possible irony in my case that I have never been unreservedly pro-choice. I usually don't participate in these kinds of arguments. But this combination of bills is galling to me.

There's a national effort afoot to float different restrictions in different legislatures to find out what will stick. Evangelicals can really be salt-of-the-earth people but they aren't ... evidence-based. And I think public policy should be evidence-based, because if we're going to restrict individual rights, let's do it in an intelligent way, to make sure Bill X is really the fix for Problem Y. The reason these bills irk me so much is their stupidity. So I attack the most stupid provisions - not the concept of restrictions.

Wanting to outlaw abortion because fetuses are people is at least a consistent position. Trying to do that while holding women harmless is not. From what I've read, Georgia's law is more consistent than Alabama's, but they took pains to make it look like abortion would be available before 6 weeks. But any medical practitioner who performed one would be killing a person under that state's laws. People pretending this isn't true drives me bonkers. "Fetal heartbeat" may sound reasonable, but the way the law is written, the personhood definition does not depend on the fetal heartbeat. The definition exempts embryos in Petri dishes. I wonder why.
I'm not disagreeing with you nor am I defending pro-lifers, just pointing out that this is at least consistent with their victimhood presentation of their side of the abortion debate. For example, at least in the past few years (maybe longer) many in the GOP have taken the narrative that abortion is actually minority genocide (as if abortion is coerced), pointing out that many aborters are black, along with presenting out of context quotes from Margaret Sanger to indicate racism.
Cabbage 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 21st May 2019, 05:39 PM   #578
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
I'm not disagreeing with you nor am I defending pro-lifers, just pointing out that this is at least consistent with their victimhood presentation of their side of the abortion debate. For example, at least in the past few years (maybe longer) many in the GOP have taken the narrative that abortion is actually minority genocide (as if abortion is coerced), pointing out that many aborters are black, along with presenting out of context quotes from Margaret Sanger to indicate racism.
That's a mystery to me - why would they want more black babies?

And the victimhood thing makes me want to wring somebody's neck.
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 21st May 2019, 05:45 PM   #579
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
That's a mystery to me - why would they want more black babies?

And the victimhood thing makes me want to wring somebody's neck.
I think the idea is they want more voters, convincing blacks that the Dems are their enemy.
Cabbage 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 21st May 2019, 07:03 PM   #580
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Man, China had this **** down! One high-status neighbor probably physically checked to see if you were bleeding regularly.

Only China did it with the opposite intentions ... to prove you weren't pregnant.
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 Yesterday, 04:42 AM   #581
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,442
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's a possible irony in my case that I have never been unreservedly pro-choice. I usually don't participate in these kinds of arguments. But this combination of bills galls me.

There's a national effort afoot to float different restrictions in different legislatures to find out what will stick. Evangelicals can really be salt-of-the-earth people but they aren't ... evidence-based. And I think public policy should be evidence-based, because if we're going to restrict individual rights, let's do it in an intelligent way, to make sure Bill X is really the fix for Problem Y. The reason these bills irk me so much is their stupidity. So I attack the most stupid provisions - not the concept of restrictions.

Wanting to outlaw abortion because fetuses are people is at least a consistent position. Trying to do that while holding women harmless is not. From what I've read, Georgia's law is more consistent than Alabama's, but they took pains to make it look like abortion would be available before 6 weeks. But any medical practitioner who performed one would be killing a person under that state's laws. People pretending this isn't true drives me bonkers. "Fetal heartbeat" may sound reasonable (ETA: to some people), but the way the law is written, the personhood definition does not depend on the fetal heartbeat. The definition exempts embryos in Petri dishes. I wonder why.
Inconsistency bother me rather a lot, too. And, like you said, the pro-life position isn't obviously stupid, so it's interesting that you and I have had different reactions to this bill.

I don't care about the fact that the bill doesn't hold women responsible. I don't find it as taking away women's agency as much as you do. It looks like mere political expediency. Some folks are willing to say that abortion is wrong, but they sympathize with women who make this often stressful choice and don't want to punish them, so they make an exception that they wouldn't make in ("other") murders. I'd say that most murders also involve an emotional stress.

This expresses a lack of commitment to the fundamental view the pro-life camp espouses, namely that abortion is murder. But I guess I'm more interested in the issue I think causes more harm, namely the criminalization of the procedure itself. The inconsistency shows the weakness of convictions, but people are weak and wishy-washy and this just isn't the important issue, far as I'm concerned.
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 Yesterday, 04:43 AM   #582
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,442
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Man, China had this **** down! One high-status neighbor probably physically checked to see if you were bleeding regularly.

Only China did it with the opposite intentions ... to prove you weren't pregnant.
I don't think that China did that.
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 Yesterday, 07:25 AM   #583
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 640
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48369780

The Scottish Courts turned down an appeal by SPUC (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child) against women being able to take abortion pills at home by themselves. They currently take a pill at a surgery or medical venue and then one at home later. The judges said that if the process started under an RMP (registered medical practitioner) you were still under their care even at home on your own.
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman 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 Yesterday, 11:36 AM   #584
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Some folks are willing to say that abortion is wrong, but they sympathize with women who make this often stressful choice and don't want to punish them, so they make an exception that they wouldn't make in ("other") murders. I'd say that most murders also involve an emotional stress.
Yeah, and we tend to charge people anyway. If there's a lot of stress that can be brought up. It's no mystery to me why those provisions are in the law (political expediency), but it would be mysterious to me if a federal court upheld the concept that the instigator of murder has no culpability in the murder.

I forgot to mention: Hypocrisy bothers me even more than stupidity.

But I'm looking at these bills to evaluate what can be torpedoed in court, not what bothers me personally.
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
But I guess I'm more interested in the issue I think causes more harm, namely the criminalization of the procedure itself.
Sorry, broken record, but Georgia's "personhood" definition has the potential to go much further than that. I don't like abortion bans, but some of these laws make even traveling for an abortion criminal. And personhood could cut off access to the morning-after pill. Even a pro-choice pharmacist might refuse to offer it, because there's a chance you're interfering with a fertilized egg. What is that personhood language doing in there, if not to enable further overreaching?

I've been told not to give any credence to pro-choice or pro-life websites or "online magazines." So apologies that this came from re.wire, a pro-choice website, but I'm trusting that this is factual:

Quote:
At the federal level, two pieces of legislation—the Sanctity of Human Life Act and the Life at Conception Act—are introduced in Congress year after year; they have failed on each occasion.
A right-to-life lawyer wrote in 2009 National Review article:
Originally Posted by Clarke D. Forsythe, senior counsel, Americans United for Life.
First, not one justice on the current Supreme Court supports the proposition that the unborn are protected as “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Not one. All have rejected it, explicitly or implicitly.
I recommend you read this one for yourself. He engages in some highly creative logic. He's soft-pedaling the possibility, which is part of a national strategy. And that was 10 years ago.

How many things would you have rated as impossible or highly unlikely 2.5 years ago? Have any of them happened?

Last edited by Minoosh; Yesterday at 11:43 AM. Reason: broke one post into 2
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 Yesterday, 11:42 AM   #585
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't think that China did that.
Why? Do you think the Chinese Communist Party would never be so intrusive?

From NPR's website: How China's one-child policy led to forced abortion, 30 million bachelors

Originally Posted by Mei Fong
If [a woman] lived in a small village, for example, she would probably be scrutinized by a group, she would probably be grouped together with a set of households and come under what they call a cluster leader, somebody who sort of monitors the progress and fertility rights of a certain set of households. ... So if this woman ... fell pregnant then most likely this cluster leader would know about it very quickly and then she would report to higher up.
China does what it takes and encourages people to rat each other out. A report that you hadn't bled for 2 months could easily lead to a physical exam. I'm not sure they actually checked that a woman was bleeding - they probably didn't have to - but IMO they would have had no qualms about 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 Yesterday, 01:16 PM   #586
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
But I'm looking at these bills to evaluate what can be torpedoed in court, not what bothers me personally.
I do need to amend this. Of course I'm looking at what bothers me personally as 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 Yesterday, 06:09 PM   #587
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Quote:
"When you create a system where you would shrink the size of a family and people would have to choose, then people would ... choose sons," Fong says.
Yep, China's problem was they didn't go far enough. Every abortion should have been followed by mandatory sterilization of both parents, whether they already had a child or not.

Quote:
"Now China has 30 million more men than women, 30 million bachelors who cannot find brides. ... They call them guang guan, 'broken branches,' that's the name in Chinese. They are the biological dead ends of their family.
And the problem is? My brother and I are both single - the 'biological dead end' of our family - and it doesn't worry us one bit.

Quote:
"Right now China has a dependency ratio of about five working adults to support one retiree. That's pretty good, that's a very healthy ratio. In about 20 years that's going to jump to about 1.6 working adults to support one retiree," Fong says. "The one-child policy drastically reshaped the composition of China's people. So now they have a population that's basically too old and too male and, down the line, maybe too few."
All those single men may be an 'unintended consequence' of the one-child policy, but if so it was fortunate because men can't have babies so it further helps to reduce population growth. There's no reason those men can't live just as productive lives as women would have, and by the time their parents are retired technology will have advanced to the point where their children won't (or at least shouldn't) have to work hard to support them.

Given the choice between huge overpopulation and 'maybe' too few workers to support retirees, I think they did the right thing. Even with the one child policy, China has more people than any other country in the World - and now also produces more greenhouse gasses than any other country (twice as much as the next biggest offender, the US). Just imagine what the World would be like now if they didn't do it. While the China's efforts to control population growth were not perfect, it was certainly better than the alternative - a continuation of the regular famines that had plagued them for centuries. Convince people to have smaller families, or accept that millions will starve to death every few years? Tough choice...

We should be thanking China for reducing their population growth without resorting to extreme measures. Giving their people the choice of whether to have a male or female child is a lot less extreme that forcing them to have the first child no matter what. If Chinese parents consistently chose to have males for some misguided reason then that is their fault, not the government's. But (unlike here) at least the government didn't take that choice away from them.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 11:18 PM   #588
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,003
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
We should be thanking China for reducing their population growth without resorting to extreme measures.
What would you consider an extreme measure?

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Giving their people the choice of whether to have a male or female child is a lot less extreme that forcing them to have the first child no matter what. If Chinese parents consistently chose to have males for some misguided reason then that is their fault, not the government's. But (unlike here) at least the government diIdn't take that choice away from them.
Forced abortion and sterilization did take choices away from people. But I'm not assigning blame so I'm not sure who you're arguing with.

The "some misguided reason" is that for thousands of years sons brought status to a household and honor to woman; girls were kind of a necessary evil. You can't eradicate that mindset in one generation. Traditionally it was seen as a familial duty to bear sons. Girls were going to be married off to some other household because that's just how things worked. And that was a best-case scenario.
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 Today, 03:15 AM   #589
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,627
I would consider mass executions of children and adults to be an extreme measure.
__________________
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
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 06:09 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.