|
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. |
14th May 2019, 08:18 AM | #121 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
14th May 2019, 08:24 AM | #122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
Nope, that's something different. She isn't being charged for having a miscarriage.
If your response is that she's being falsely charged, well, that can happen with any law. Shall we legalize murder because people get wrongfully convicted? And if your response is that inducing a miscarriage shouldn't be illegal, well, it's been illegal for a long time. Regardless of whether or not that law should be on the books, it's not a sign of some slide into dystopia. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
14th May 2019, 08:52 AM | #123 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
14th May 2019, 08:55 AM | #124 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
Not really. I mean look at all the success states have had, soon we will have many states were they have defacto banned it because they drove all clinics out of business. Louisiana has only one and a waiting period so you have to spend several days out of work unless you are local. They of course have to fly in the doctors.
A good model for antigun legislation really, if you needed to drive a couple of hundred miles to buy guns or ammo that would totally not be an infringement on your constitutional rights after all. |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
14th May 2019, 09:06 AM | #125 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
Speaking of anti-gun, if early-term abortions become illegal, and women are forced to travel or induce miscarriages ... we could see an expansion of "concealed carry" to include fetuses.
|
14th May 2019, 10:00 AM | #126 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,811
|
|
14th May 2019, 10:10 AM | #127 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
We'll never know but I'd like to know how many of these publicly anti-abortion people have actually had one themselves or encouraged a girlfriend, daughter, or mistress to get one? I suspect quite a lot.
|
14th May 2019, 11:27 AM | #128 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
But it is great, you get 12 year olds coparenting with their rapists.
"A Michigan judge has granted parental rights to a convicted sex offender, providing the man with access to a child born from the nearly decade-old alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl, the victim’s lawyer said." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-s-son-n809196 |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
14th May 2019, 11:28 AM | #129 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
14th May 2019, 11:31 AM | #130 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
14th May 2019, 01:19 PM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
From WAPO:
Quote:
The bill is really horrible as written. You don't do your case any good by bungling fundamental issues like this. ETA: Your erroneous claims have been pointed out in this thread previously, as early as post 4 with a link to a relevant and reputable article. Do you just not care? |
14th May 2019, 01:21 PM | #132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
15th May 2019, 02:56 AM | #133 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
Alabama passes total abortion ban. No exceptions.
Here. We. Go. |
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
15th May 2019, 03:19 AM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,964
|
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-horrific.html
It appears that if a woman takes a drug like misoprostol and then has a miscarriage I don't see why she couldn't be prosecuted under the law. |
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
15th May 2019, 03:43 AM | #135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
15th May 2019, 04:14 AM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
Shocking as it is to you or me, it's what the vast majority of people in Alabama want. It's not as if the bill squeaked through, it was 25-6 in the Senate and 74-3 in the House.
It's a feature of a federal system, states have significant latitude and it's the reason why California can continue to have legal abortion even if the majority of states ban it. The same goes for teaching creationism, banning sex education and making contraception difficult to get hold of - it's what the overwhelming majority of people in that state want. I don't understand it, but that's not important. |
15th May 2019, 04:26 AM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 35,043
|
Realistically, the anti-abortion sentiments of these states is nothing new. These states have been at odds with the Roe v. Wade since the moment the decision was handed down.
What is new is that these states seem to believe that these restrictions could survive court challenge or outright overturn Roe v Wade altogether. Republicans have been very effective on running a tight ship, politically speaking, when it comes to judicial appointments. The goal of changing the law by installing judges has been a staple of RNC election campaigns for many years. Trump's installation of two conservative SCOTUS judges is seen as a unqualified success, even among the Trump-averse segment of the party. Where in the past passing such a law was seen as a waste of money and effort by conservative states, because it would just get slapped down in court, now they feel it is a good time to pass such laws and put it to the test. Either the conservatives now feel that overturning Roe v. Wade is in striking distance, or they think a close vote on SCOTUS will be excellent election fodder ("one more SCOTUS judge and Roe is dead, vote Trump 2020") With RGB's advance age and apparent frailty, i expect the 2020 election to be even more explicitly about who appoints the next SCOTUS judge. Conservatives have historically been better about mobilizing voters around the issue of judicial appointments than liberals. |
__________________
Previously known as SuburbanTurkey |
|
15th May 2019, 04:28 AM | #138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,811
|
|
15th May 2019, 04:41 AM | #139 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,964
|
Your Wapo article says
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
15th May 2019, 04:52 AM | #140 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
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.
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. 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. |
15th May 2019, 04:55 AM | #141 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
15th May 2019, 04:56 AM | #142 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
Yes and no. The judge ordered it with out any information at all. Of course he didn't ask for it. It was the state going after him for child support because the child was receiving state aid that caused the whole thing.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/10/...tody-of-child/ |
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
15th May 2019, 04:58 AM | #143 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
15th May 2019, 05:11 AM | #144 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
Yes, it's a matter of establishing the boundary between human rights so basic from a national perspective that states cannot rule against them and those things which can be set on a state by state basis. Fortunately this is a movable feast and the liberal policies of the last 70 years or so have enshrined so many rights at a national basis.
The right for women to choose currently fits in that first category but that same flexibility to change which has delivered so many enhancements to human rights may be set to deliver change in the other direction. If that's the will of the majority of people in the majority of states then it's only right and proper. |
15th May 2019, 05:14 AM | #145 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
But yet you reject them as seen by your disagreement with the first amendment applying to states with the teaching of creationism.
Quote:
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
15th May 2019, 05:41 AM | #146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
Regarding the teaching of creationism, I suppose it depends on which end of the telescope you're looking through.
Those people who wish to limit the teaching of creationism to religious instruction and not science probably view states who wish it to be taught alongside, or even instead of evolution as the government getting involved and thus breaking the first amendment. Those who have the opposite view probably view the government telling them that they cannot teach creationism alongside, or even instead of evolution as the government getting involved and thus breaking the first amendment. I'm not sure that there's much demand for a repeal of the 14th amendment but it wouldn't shock me to find that there are many, many states where what I as a Western European would consider basic human rights are highly controversial - the right for a woman to choose is one of them. Fundamental human rights are only fundamental if a country elects to uphold them. The US would come under considerable international criticism if it were to ban abortion in some states, make gay marriage illegal in some states or repeal swathes of civil rights legislation. Then again, pulling out of the Paris Climate Change agreement and the Iranian nuclear deal were controversial and the US was happy to do it. |
15th May 2019, 06:10 AM | #147 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
I suspect Travis is referring to a different part of the bill (or a different bill, I'm not sure exactly how the process works), where if a woman brings an allegation of rape, but the accused is found not guilty, the accuser is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
https://pluralist.com/alabama-bill-c...e-allegations/ |
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
15th May 2019, 06:51 AM | #148 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 1,022
|
If this passes into law, every time a female has sexual intercourse in the state of Alabama, she will be literally putting her life/freedom on the line.
It's the 18th century all over again, ladies.... time to rethink whether or not that boyfriend or husband of yours is worth risking your personal freedom for. Up to 99 fricken years for terminating the unwanted zygote growing in your womb...? And if you were the victim of a horrific rape? Oh well. Too bad, so sad. *shrug* If this passes into law, you'll have only two choices ladies: - Carry any and all accidental pregnancies to full term (the common risks of developing diabetes, hypo/hyper thyroidism, new allergies, iron deficiencies, pernicious anemia, high blood pressure, etc etc be damned) OR - Risk your life in the bathtub with a coathanger Chattel indeed. |
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips |
|
15th May 2019, 07:18 AM | #149 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
15th May 2019, 07:22 AM | #150 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
I'm not sure what your criticism is. Why are these things issues?
If one thinks abortion is murder, you are making poor arguments for why they shouldn't make murder illegal. If one thinks abortion is not murder, then your argument doesn't need more than, "don't make things murder when they are not murder." |
15th May 2019, 07:26 AM | #151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
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. |
15th May 2019, 08:10 AM | #152 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 1,022
|
I don't know Bob. Why are these things issues? This has absolutely nothing to "murder" and everything to do with a woman's biological function and how she wants to handle it. Women have had to make these types of overwhelmingly difficult personal decisions since the dawn of mankind. Why are outsiders forcing their own personal choices (that big bad murder word) on women they've never met? Who the **** are these people to decide someone else's personal biological/health choices? The USA needs to decide which century it wants to live in. |
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips |
|
15th May 2019, 08:13 AM | #153 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
15th May 2019, 08:42 AM | #154 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
15th May 2019, 08:44 AM | #155 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Except, the law doesn't do that.
At least, that's what all the analyses I have read from lawyers say. On the surface, it might appear that you could be correct, but the lawyers say no. The Georgia law makes specific changes to specific sections of the code of laws for the state of Georgia. The result of those law changes is that a lot more abortions fall under the illegal abortion law, but it doesn't change specific sections of that code which say that killing a fetus is not murder, and that abortion is not feticide, and that there are no penalties for miscarriage unless the miscarriage is deliberate. To be fair, I prefer laws that are simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. This one isn't, but the lawyers I have read say that no one is going to be charged with murder. |
15th May 2019, 08:50 AM | #156 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,596
|
It’s not murder like picking up acorns is not logging. But then I already don’t think all instances of killing a full on human are murder either. Anyone who thinks it’s not that complicated has intentionally or unintentionally enshrined suffering IMO.
|
15th May 2019, 08:54 AM | #157 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 1,022
|
Why isn't it called "murder" (thereby passing a law to make it illegal) when we snatch an egg out from under a hen (fertilized or not) and crack it open in our frying pan?
Do you think of murder every time you chow down on some scrambled eggs? Murder assumes the victim to be a self-determining, self-sustaining, living, breathing, already existing, fully developed sentient being. Using the word "murder" on something that's not all of the above, is what's known as the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. A fallacy that works remarkable well on the sanctimonious masses, apparently. |
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips |
|
15th May 2019, 08:58 AM | #158 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
15th May 2019, 09:11 AM | #159 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Apparently, human development continues into the early 20s. Certainly a three month-old human is neither self-determining nor self-sustaining (in addition to not being fully developed).
You seem to be developing an argument in favor of legalizing fourth-trimester abortions. |
15th May 2019, 09:38 AM | #160 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 1,022
|
A three month old human can choose to suck on its own toes (self-determining) because it has toes to suck on. A three month old human breaths on its own from developed lungs (self-sustaining) because it has lungs to breath from. A three month old human has a birth certificate (note the word "birth") declaring it to be a realized human being. Do you celebrate your conception day? Or your birth day? You seem to be developing your usual circular semantics argument in favour of your love for pedantry and mental gymnastics. The bottom line is: You know damn well the point (and context) of what my post was saying, loud and clear. Don't waste my time trying to twist it into something it's not. |
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|