International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Upchurch 19th July 2022 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858419)
Cry me a river. We shouldn't be making policy based on the far outlier. If we can create good law to include them, great. If not, oh well. And this has nothing to do with stupid law...like permitting 8 1/2 month abortions without medical cause...like most libs here seem to be totally accepting towards.

You really don’t see it?

Partisanship is one hell of a drug.

Warp12 19th July 2022 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13858685)
You really don’t see it?

Partisanship is one hell of a drug.


Incorrect.

We have current law that allows for such insane abortions, legally. This law was in place prior to the collapse of Roe. There was no liberal complaint, and still isn't any.

But there sure is a lot of complaint, and the sudden mention of certain other outliers as the norm, now.

wareyin 19th July 2022 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858776)
Incorrect.

We have current law that allows for such insane abortions, legally. This law was in place prior to the collapse of Roe. There was no liberal complaint, and still isn't any.

But there sure is a lot of complaint, and the sudden mention of certain other outliers as the norm, now.

Why would any sane person complain that there's no law prohibiting what doesn't happen?

Oh, wait, absolutely nobody is worried that there isn't a law against stuff that doesn't happen, rather one person is attempting to post inflammatory idiocy just to get attention.

Warp12 19th July 2022 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13858790)
Why would any sane person complain that there's no law prohibiting what doesn't happen?

Oh, wait, absolutely nobody is worried that there isn't a law against stuff that doesn't happen, rather one person is attempting to post inflammatory idiocy just to get attention.


I don't think most of America supports late 3rd trimester abortion without medical cause being legal. Of course when a conservative posts about such matters in liberal town, it will be considered "inflammatory".

This is the sort of tone deafness that led to Roe getting tanked, imo. As has been my major point.

Delphic Oracle 19th July 2022 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858798)
I don't think most of America supports late 3rd trimester abortion without medical cause being legal. Of course when a conservative posts about such matters in liberal town, it will be considered "inflammatory".

This is the sort of tone deafness that led to Roe getting tanked, imo. As has been my major point.

The statement wrapped in the appearances of a query presented is inflammatory regardless of who posted it.

Some people like to imagine themselves so very important and centered.

wareyin 19th July 2022 07:46 AM

Feigning concern that there's no law against stuff that doesn't actually happen anyway is so edgy!

shemp 19th July 2022 07:52 AM

1 Attachment(s)
There is no irony meter that can measure this one:

https://twitter.com/musclesnnursing/...40495089827840

Quote:

NC Bill 158 would make it legal to murder a pregnant woman who intends to get an abortion if you are “defending the life of a baby”.
See the next to last sentence in the underlined part.

Warp12 19th July 2022 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13858896)
There is no irony meter that can measure this one:

https://twitter.com/musclesnnursing/...40495089827840



See the next to last sentence in the underlined part.


Can you elaborate? I don't see the outrageous point.

wareyin 19th July 2022 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13858896)
There is no irony meter that can measure this one:

https://twitter.com/musclesnnursing/...40495089827840



See the next to last sentence in the underlined part.

We had to kill the fetus to protect the fetus.

Suddenly 19th July 2022 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13858890)
Feigning concern that there's no law against stuff that doesn't actually happen anyway is so edgy!

I mean, there are laws against it. If a doctor aborts a baby that could be easily otherwise safely delivered and be viable in the sense that it's not immediately going to die from not having a brain or heart or whatever, a prosecutor could indict for homicide and use a non-psychopathic doctor as an expert witness to establish that the "abortion" wasn't an abortion in the sense there was no medical basis whatsoever for it.

Roe wouldn't enter into it if it isn't medical, and a 38th week abortion of a healthy fetus that could just as well be removed from the mother alive is homicide.

Warp12 19th July 2022 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13858917)
We had to kill the fetus to protect the fetus.


Isn't a statement like that directly akin to the common argument here that abortion is better than an unwanted/unsupported child? Both sound equally stupid.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858798)
I don't think most of America supports late 3rd trimester abortion without medical cause being legal. Of course when a conservative posts about such matters in liberal town, it will be considered "inflammatory".

This is the sort of tone deafness that led to Roe getting tanked, imo. As has been my major point.

And yet the past couple of decades (accelerating in the last half a dozen years) the trend we have seen is one of encroaching attacks on abortion rights (which I & others have pointed to before).

wareyin 19th July 2022 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858922)
Isn't a statement like that directly akin to the common argument here that abortion is better than an unwanted/unsupported child? Both sound equally stupid.

It depends on your frame of reference, of course. If you have the empathy that an "omg think of the children" stance would require, you obviously wouldn't want children to be unsupported.
If you're just doing a dry cost/benefit analysis, then you'd realize forcing children to be born into poverty would put a huge strain on societal safety nets that you probably don't want to pay for.
If you're just being contrarian because it sticks it to the libs, then you can claim any position sounds stupid because...well, acting up to get attention.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858907)
Can you elaborate? I don't see the outrageous point.

I don't either. Fetuses that commit a capital offense may be sentenced to death after a proper trial. It is as it should be.

ETA: Oh yeah. I thought you meant the last one. Yes, it unambiguously says that killing someone to prevent an abortion is justifiable homicide and should not be assigned legal culpability & punishment.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13858960)
It depends on your frame of reference, of course. If you have the empathy that an "omg think of the children" stance would require, you obviously wouldn't want children to be unsupported.
If you're just doing a dry cost/benefit analysis, then you'd realize forcing children to be born into poverty would put a huge strain on societal safety nets that you probably don't want to pay for.
If you're just being contrarian because it sticks it to the libs, then you can claim any position sounds stupid because...well, acting up to get attention.

Or the other option, he's just cosplaying concern.

Upchurch 19th July 2022 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13858896)
There is no irony meter that can measure this one:

https://twitter.com/musclesnnursing/...40495089827840



See the next to last sentence in the underlined part.

IANAL, but I read that as legalizing murder to prevent someone performing an abortion, e.g. medical doctors.

eta: or, at least, also legalizing murder of doctors. I can also read it as murdering the mother.

newyorkguy 19th July 2022 09:07 AM

The Bill is a pro-life bill:
Quote:

AN ACT TO AMEND THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION TO DECLARE THAT A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION AND SHALL BE HELD INVIOLATE AS AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON AND PROTECTED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH, SO LONG AS THAT PERSON IS NOT CONVICTED OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE.
Sec. 39. Life begins at fertilization
Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.

It also reads to me like legal grounds for killing doctors/nurses/staff at abortion clinics. Scary stuff. :(

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13858896)
There is no irony meter that can measure this one:

https://twitter.com/musclesnnursing/...40495089827840

The point of the bill is that starting at conception, we have a thing that is exactly the same as a person and that abortion is exactly first degree murder (with all that it legally implies).

I have seen this account on Twitter push it and claim it was currently under active discussion. I have seen nothing backing that. The most recent information about this seems to be:
Withdrawn (Jul. 2021) :arrow: resubmitted (Jul. 2021) :arrow: withdrawn (Aug. 2021) :arrow: resubmitted (Aug. 2021)...
https://openstates.org/nc/bills/2021/HB158/

However, I think folk suggesting that it's too radical & will not ever be given serious consideration are dreaming. It will certainly come up again in the next legislative session &, given sufficient GOP dominance, it will eventually pass... and Warpie here will rejoice about how much this pwns teh libs (all while gaslighting & saying they brought it on on themselves —have you seen what teh libs were wearing?).

thaiboxerken 19th July 2022 09:08 AM

There is no law against aborting fetus of a pregnant human that was impregnated by extra-terrestrial beings. Why are all you libs all for allowing the murder of ET babies at 8 1/2 months?!

Darat 19th July 2022 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13858962)
I don't either. Fetuses that commit a capital offense may be sentenced to death after a proper trial. It is as it should be.

I think this is a clever way to allow legal abortion. If the mother is being put at risk of death by the foetus, the foetus is attempting to murder the woman i.e attempted murder! That is a capital crime and the foetus can be sentenced to death for attempted murder.

wareyin 19th July 2022 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13858964)
Or the other option, he's just cosplaying concern.

Yeah, that was my third "If", and I'll leave it to the reader to see which one is more likely here.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13858983)
I think this is a clever way to allow legal abortion. If the mother is being put at risk of death by the foetus, the foetus is attempting to murder the woman i.e attempted murder! That is a capital crime and the foetus can be sentenced to death for attempted murder.

You are overthinking this. In any case, that's not how 1st degree murder works (unless you are going to ascribe premeditation and intent to kill to a fetus now).

They are clowns. They don't care that they are clowns. It's not important that they are clowns. You should not dismiss them on the basis of them being clowns.

Shalamar 19th July 2022 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13858983)
I think this is a clever way to allow legal abortion. If the mother is being put at risk of death by the foetus, the foetus is attempting to murder the woman i.e attempted murder! That is a capital crime and the foetus can be sentenced to death for attempted murder.

Only after a long trial with multiple delays, by which time both are dead.

Upchurch 19th July 2022 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13858996)
You are overthinking this. In any case, that's not how 1st degree murder works (unless you are going to ascribe premeditation and intent to kill to a fetus now).

As established earlier in the thread, there are people who ascribe moral agency to zygotes/embryos/fetuses by describing them as "the most innocent life". If they can be innocent, that implies that they can also be guilty. If they can be innocent OR guilty, they must have intent.

The anti-choice logic is so garbled, it falls apart under the lightest scrutiny.

shemp 19th July 2022 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858907)
Can you elaborate? I don't see the outrageous point.

Quote:

Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.
Example: If a pregnant woman tries to get an abortion or performs a self-abortion, it would be legal to kill the pregnant woman to prevent her from doing this. Of course, this would result in the death of the fetus.

Even I do not think this was an intended interpretation by the sponsors of the bill, but it certainly could be interpreted that way.

Regnad Kcin 19th July 2022 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13858605)
Yet you keep bombarding the thread with a dumb outlier hypothetical about very late-term pregnancies as apologia for your misogynistic stance on Roe vs Wade.

She made me hit her!

shemp 19th July 2022 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13858979)
The Bill is a pro-life bill:


It also reads to me like legal grounds for killing doctors/nurses/staff at abortion clinics. Scary stuff. :(

Yes, that too.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13859024)
Example: If a pregnant woman tries to get an abortion or performs a self-abortion, it would be legal to kill the pregnant woman to prevent her from doing this. Of course, this would result in the death of the fetus.

Even I do not think this was an intended interpretation by the sponsors of the bill, but it certainly could be interpreted that way.

It is mainly intended to set up a framework where a killer of an abortion provider (like the killings of David Gunn, John Britton, Barnett Slepian & George Tiller or other health care workers, clinic staff & volunteers) will be able to get away with murder by reclassifying it as justifiable homicide.

That's the clear intent. It's nothing less than that.

Blank 19th July 2022 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13858979)
The Bill is a pro-life bill:

It also reads to me like legal grounds for killing doctors/nurses/staff at abortion clinics. Scary stuff. :(

Why stop there?

One operating mechanic of IUD (or SSR/copper coil) contraception is preventing the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus wall. While it's not necessarily the major part of the functionality it still happens.

So it's also an anti-contraception bill.

JoeMorgue 19th July 2022 10:53 AM

I love how we're going through abortion laws data mining them for hints that they might go after contraceptives or the lives of the mother next when they've already openly admitted that's exactly what they are doing.

bruto 19th July 2022 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858907)
Can you elaborate? I don't see the outrageous point.

Well, one part might be the obviously oxymoronic idea that one could kill a mother who is planning an abortion, which would, of course, almost certainly amount to killing the fetus too, thus completing the abortion at the cost of another life, which, if thought about, is about as stupid as could be. It is, at the very best, the product of very meager thought.

However, if "even deadly force" is allowed, then this is the outer limit, not the only thing allowed. Constraint, imprisonment, and anything less than actual murder would likely be included. The law as written, would appear to justify any act of imprisonment, deprivation or cruelty, up to and including death, on any woman who is deemed by persons not specified to be intending an abortion. If as written the amendment justifies without qualification "deadly force," then it could easily include a medically induced coma, or any procedure that essentially paralyzed, numbed, or killed a pregnant woman while leaving her physical body capable of bringing a child to term. That is, of course, a ridiculous outrageous, stupid and unlikely scenario, but it is NOT excluded.

e.t.a. and of course, the killing of abortion providers is at least implied, if not explicitly permitted. No fetal death oxymoron prevents that.

If you don't think that's an outrage, I wonder what you think would be.

newyorkguy 19th July 2022 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blank (Post 13859096)
Why stop there?...

Who says they will? ;)

Luckily though, NC Bill 158 -- sponsored by Republican state Reps. Mark Brody a contractor and Larry Pittman a pastor -- was introduced n 2021 and is still bottled up in committee.

Stacyhs 19th July 2022 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13858798)
I don't think most of America supports late 3rd trimester abortion without medical cause being legal. Of course when a conservative posts about such matters in liberal town, it will be considered "inflammatory".

This is the sort of tone deafness that led to Roe getting tanked, imo. As has been my major point.

Your point has a very dull tip which explains your failure to make a case for it.

Your continual digging has earned you the Golden Shovel Award.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6f49f3381d.jpg

Stacyhs 19th July 2022 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13859116)
Well, one part might be the obviously oxymoronic idea that one could kill a mother who is planning an abortion, which would, of course, almost certainly amount to killing the fetus too, thus completing the abortion at the cost of another life, which, if thought about, is about as stupid as could be. It is, at the very best, the product of very meager thought.

However, if "even deadly force" is allowed, then this is the outer limit, not the only thing allowed. Constraint, imprisonment, and anything less than actual murder would likely be included. The law as written, would appear to justify any act of imprisonment, deprivation or cruelty, up to and including death, on any woman who is deemed by persons not specified to be intending an abortion. If as written the amendment justifies without qualification "deadly force," then it could easily include a medically induced coma, or any procedure that essentially paralyzed, numbed, or killed a pregnant woman while leaving her physical body capable of bringing a child to term. That is, of course, a ridiculous outrageous, stupid and unlikely scenario, but it is NOT excluded.

e.t.a. and of course, the killing of abortion providers is at least implied, if not explicitly permitted. No fetal death oxymoron prevents that.

If you don't think that's an outrage, I wonder what you think would be.

Not condemning a law that doesn't make illegal something that doesn't happen? He seems pretty outraged about that.

cosmicaug 19th July 2022 12:03 PM

From https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/opinion/miscarriages-abortion-ban.html
Quote:

Some in the anti-abortion movement insist that the doctors refusing to treat these women are mistaken about what the laws in their states say. “To the extent that doctors or attorneys are confused about whether necessary women’s health care is forbidden under pro-life laws, the fault lies in large part with pro-abortion activists, who have been intentionally muddying the waters,” tweeted Alexandra DeSanctis Marr, a writer for National Review and the co-author of “Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing.”


If that was the case, one might think abortion opponents would be eager to see their laws clarified. After all, the suffering caused by mismanaged miscarriages doesn’t serve the cause of fetal life. Ultimately, it will likely be detrimental to the anti-abortion movement. In Ireland, it was the death of Savita Halappanavar, who developed septicemia after being refused a termination while she was miscarrying, that spurred the successful campaign for legalized abortion there. Preventing such deaths should be as urgent a priority for those opposed to legal abortion as for those who champion it.


But it isn’t. Last week, the Biden administration released guidance that under federal law, hospitals must provide abortions when they’re necessary to stabilize patients suffering medical emergencies, or transfer them to a hospital that will. Texas is suing to prevent that policy from going into effect, saying it would “transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic.”


Idaho’s Republican Party recently changed its platform to call for the criminalization of all abortions without exception. According to a blog post by Idaho Reports, a public policy television program, some delegates shared concerns about ectopic pregnancies and proposed an exemption in the platform when a woman’s life is in “lethal danger.” The exemption proposal was voted down, 412-164.

[...]
As Idaho seems to have a particular appeal that makes it a Mecca for militia types & all sorts of right wing extremism, we might be tempted to see the total takeover of their GOP by extremists as an aberration. This is a mistake. They might be early adopters but they should not to be considered a case apart. This is the GOP today.

Quote:

I thought I was sufficiently cynical about the anti-abortion movement, but I admit to being taken aback by this blithe, public disregard for the lives of women, including women suffering the loss of wanted pregnancies.


I suspect that part of what’s happening is the right following its own rhetoric to its logical conclusion. It’s common for abortion opponents to claim that abortion is never medically necessary. Among conservative elites, this argument relies on semantic trickery, defining the termination of pregnancy to save a woman’s life as something other than abortion. Hence when the president of Americans United for Life testified before Congress, she argued, about the high-profile case of the 10-year-old rape victim, “If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion.”


This stance allows some abortion opponents to avoid reckoning with the consequences of the laws they support. Others, however, see those consequences fully and are fine with them. Scott Herndon, an Idaho Republican who recently unseated an incumbent state senator, was the politician who proposed the abortion criminalization language in his party’s platform. A website he runs, Abolish Abortion Idaho, says, of legislation he pushes, “Doctors may not intentionally kill the child in their medical attempts to treat the mother.”
The writer has not been paying attention if she was "taken aback".

shemp 19th July 2022 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13859135)
Your point has a very dull tip which explains your failure to make a case for it.

Your continual digging has earned you the Golden Shovel Award.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6f49f3381d.jpg

He's already halfway to China.

JoeMorgue 19th July 2022 12:23 PM

As long as people are being hurt and things are getting worse, some people are happy.

Warp12 19th July 2022 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13859190)
As long as people are being hurt and things are getting worse, some people are happy.


When you see comments like this, in a thread that vehemently advocates for the killing of the unborn, you just scratch your head.

Skeptic Ginger 19th July 2022 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13858605)
Yet you keep bombarding the thread with a dumb outlier hypothetical about very late-term pregnancies as apologia for your misogynistic stance on Roe vs Wade.

Good point.

thaiboxerken 19th July 2022 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13859198)
When you see comments like this, in a thread that vehemently advocates for the killing of the unborn, you just scratch your head.

Don't speak for me. Maybe you scratch your head, but I don't. I understand that your entire goal is to hurt the libs and force children to have their rapists' babies.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.