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 14th May 2019, 08:18 AM   #121
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You know this has happened already right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.15f57b90d018

ANd how countries with strong abortion bans deal with miscarriages.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-12-...me-miscarriage

Really if her neglect caused the miscarriage it only makes sense to charge her. There really is nothing new about this.
El Salvador?

It may be that someday some legislature will pass laws that do everything people say this one does. However, this law doesn't do that.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 08:24 AM   #122
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,969
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You know this has happened already right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.15f57b90d018
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
Ziggurat 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 14th May 2019, 08:52 AM   #123
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Frankly, I think that a consistent pro-life position would not include any rape exception. If abortion is wrong because the fetus has a right to life and such a right outweighs a woman's right to bodily self-determination, then what does it matter that the fetus is a product of rape? The fetus is not the rapist. The only reason pro-lifers carve out a rape exception is because it is politically wise to do so. Most people are uncomfortable, for obvious reasons, telling a rape victim she must carry the product of rape until birth.
Throwing unborn "babies" under the bus for political expediency doesn't sound very Christian to me. Maybe in the end they don't really care about babies, just the heaven-points they get by saying that they do.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 08:55 AM   #124
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
And in the meantime, a state or municipality that attempts to ban abortion has a serious uphill battle.
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
ponderingturtle 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 14th May 2019, 09:06 AM   #125
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
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.
carlitos 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 14th May 2019, 10:00 AM   #126
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,423
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Throwing unborn "babies" under the bus for political expediency doesn't sound very Christian to me. Maybe in the end they don't really care about babies, just the heaven-points they get by saying that they do.
Or maybe they do care about babies but feel none will be saved from abortion if they donít go along with the rape exception.
eeyore1954 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 14th May 2019, 10:10 AM   #127
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,806
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.
Stacyhs 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 14th May 2019, 11:27 AM   #128
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Or maybe they do care about babies but feel none will be saved from abortion if they donít go along with the rape exception.
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 victimís 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
ponderingturtle 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 14th May 2019, 11:28 AM   #129
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.
Ah but they are wealthy so those standards don't apply to them. Your abortion is always different. It will not stop them protesting the clinic they got it at next week 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
ponderingturtle 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 14th May 2019, 11:31 AM   #130
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,559
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Or maybe they do care about babies but feel none will be saved from abortion if they donít go along with the rape exception.
"The good of the many..."
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 01:19 PM   #131
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,747
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Since women who have miscarriages will also be subject to prison I very well think women stuck in Georgia who suspect they might be pregnant might just do everything they can to keep it a secret from officials until it is born lest they end up doing time if it miscarries.
From WAPO:
Quote:
HB 481 could not be used to successfully prosecute women, [Planned Parenthood's Staci Fox] argued. But if a woman had a miscarriage, she could be pulled into an investigation looking at whether someone performed an illegal abortion on her.
The consequences are bad, no doubt. But women who have an abortion cannot be prosecuted under that bill, much less women who miscarry.

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?

Last edited by phiwum; 14th May 2019 at 01:24 PM.
phiwum 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 14th May 2019, 01:21 PM   #132
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,747
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Or maybe they do care about babies but feel none will be saved from abortion if they donít go along with the rape exception.
I think that's fair.
phiwum 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, 02:56 AM   #133
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,999
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
Zingiber Officinale

Travis 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, 03:19 AM   #134
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,754
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Does the Slate reference improve the reputation of the idea, or harm the reputation of Slate?
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
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, 03:43 AM   #135
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,747
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
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.
Because the law doesn't include any provisions for prosecuting anyone aside from doctors who provide abortions?
phiwum 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, 04:14 AM   #136
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Alabama passes total abortion ban. No exceptions.


Here. We. Go.
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.
The Don 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, 04:26 AM   #137
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,896
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.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 15th May 2019 at 04:29 AM.
SuburbanTurkey 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, 04:28 AM   #138
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,423
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
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 victimís lawyer said."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-s-son-n809196
I hope there is more to the story than the headline.
eeyore1954 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, 04:41 AM   #139
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,754
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Because the law doesn't include any provisions for prosecuting anyone aside from doctors who provide abortions?
Your Wapo article says

Quote:
Georgiaís law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt
Stern at Slate has responded to this. I recommend reading the full article. But let me just highlight this provision of the law:

Quote:
The most startling provision of HB 481 grants full legal personhood to fetuses after about six weeks of pregnancy.
Full legal personhood means that you don't need to rely on this law, you could just just charge a woman with murder under existing laws. It would be the same as strangling a baby in its cradle.
__________________
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, 04:52 AM   #140
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
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.
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.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:55 AM   #141
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
Or good old favorites like Jim Crow, banning Miscegenation and so forth. Really the bill of rights shouldn't apply to the states at all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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, 04:56 AM   #142
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I hope there is more to the story than the headline.
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
ponderingturtle 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, 04:58 AM   #143
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If she deliberately takes it for the purpose of inducing a miscarriage, after the point of fetal heartbeat,
Well formed yoke sack really. But that medical specificity doesn't translate well into emotionally manipulating voters, like the political term "partial birth abortion"
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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, 05:11 AM   #144
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Or good old favorites like Jim Crow, banning Miscegenation and so forth. Really the bill of rights shouldn't apply to the states at all.
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.
The Don 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, 05:14 AM   #145
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
But yet you reject them as seen by your disagreement with the first amendment applying to states with the teaching of creationism.
Quote:
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.
And the courts were clearly wrong to make those rulings. It should have been the states choosing to end jim crow and allow miscegenation. At least if you are consistent You are removing the 14th amendment.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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, 05:41 AM   #146
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 26,928
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But yet you reject them as seen by your disagreement with the first amendment applying to states with the teaching of creationism.
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.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And the courts were clearly wrong to make those rulings. It should have been the states choosing to end jim crow and allow miscegenation. At least if you are consistent You are removing the 14th 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.
The Don 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, 06:10 AM   #147
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 43,183
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post


Your italicized bit is interesting. Did any Alabama legislators make an argument to that effect? (And especially did anyone say that rape isn't a problem?)
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
zooterkin 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, 06:51 AM   #148
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 567
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
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, 07:18 AM   #149
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,747
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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.
Of course, the current rulings in the Supreme Court make teaching creationism as fact or outlawing abortion unconstitutional. For the latter, this will be another roll of the dice, but the odds are better for the pro-life camp than they used to be.
phiwum 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, 07:22 AM   #150
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
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.
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."
BobTheCoward 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, 07:26 AM   #151
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,747
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Your Wapo article says



Stern at Slate has responded to this. I recommend reading the full article. But let me just highlight this provision of the law:



Full legal personhood means that you don't need to rely on this law, you could just just charge a woman with murder under existing laws. It would be the same as strangling a baby in its cradle.
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, "Georgiaís law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgiaís 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.
phiwum 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, 08:10 AM   #152
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 567
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
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."

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
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, 08:13 AM   #153
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
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.
If one thinks abortion is murder, then abortion has everything to do with murder. If one doesn't, then it doesn't. They think murder is sufficient reason to limit the choice of people to commit murder. Those who don't think it is murder think that is a stupid idea.
BobTheCoward 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, 08:42 AM   #154
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,493
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, "Georgiaís law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgiaís 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.
Ah but having a defense doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted, it just means they have a chance to defend themselves if they are.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 AM   #155
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,327
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Full legal personhood means that you don't need to rely on this law, you could just just charge a woman with murder under existing laws. It would be the same as strangling a baby in its cradle.
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.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:50 AM   #156
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,556
Itís not murder like picking up acorns is not logging. But then I already donít think all instances of killing a full on human are murder either. Anyone who thinks itís not that complicated has intentionally or unintentionally enshrined suffering IMO.
Lithrael 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, 08:54 AM   #157
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 567
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
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, 08:58 AM   #158
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
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.
How do you prove that is what murder assumes? For many it is based on the assumed presence of a soul.
BobTheCoward 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, 09:11 AM   #159
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,237
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
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.
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.
theprestige 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 AM   #160
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 567
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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).

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?


Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You seem to be developing an argument in favor of legalizing fourth-trimester abortions.
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
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
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 03:55 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.