Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:42 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Why would intent matter? If some stranger is pointing a gun at me, does it matter (with regards to whether I can engage in deadly force) whether they're intending to kill me or whether they're doing it by accident? I'm pretty sure the law does not require ill intent to be established for self-defense, as long as the person in question has reasonable fear of bodily harm.

Based on the incredible damage pregnancy can do to women's bodies and health, then it's entirely possible that a woman might have legitimate and reasonable fear of harm to their body, health, and even life. The intent of the fetus doesn't matter at all, if we're using the same basis as for self-defense.
I wasn't the one that introduced the idea of intent. That was Rick Kitchen (or possibly another poster before him). He wrote: "Could the woman claim the baby is trying to kill her ...". "Trying to" implies intent whereas something like "Could the woman claim the baby / pregnancy may kill her" would not.
  #152  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,197
If someone threatens (or appears to threaten, whatever their intent) to use the inside of my body as their home, slowly grow by utilizing my nutrients, cause me periodic physical pain and nausea, permanently change the way my skin looks, then I'm sure as hell gonna use force to prevent them from doing this, even if they're very small. Maybe under some circumstances I might allow it, but that should be my choice, not the government's.
  #153  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, your quote says "miscarriage or stillbirth" (emphasis added) so a distinction is implicitly recognized, therefore "miscarriage" and "stillbirth" cannot be assumed to be synonymous, therefore the opposite of stillbirth ("live birth") cannot be assumed to be contradictory, and I stand by my usage.
Yes, there is a difference. Do you know what that is? The CDC website may help:

If you can't understand that a live birth is something different from those two things (stillbirth or miscarriage), I guess I can't help you further.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
... So are you on board with applying it to pregnancy, then? That would be reasonably consistent, given the facts about pregnancy and the toll it can take. If someone threatened to do to Johnny Guntoter what a pregnancy can do to a woman, can he defend himself or does he just have to take it?
No, I don't think it applies at all. First of all, I'm not sure a normal pregnancy and delivery (the reasonably likely outcome) amounts to "great bodily harm". Secondly, there are other options on the force continuum aside from deadly force when someone is facing a threat of violence, but violence that is not reasonably likely to result in death or great bodily harm. This whole SYG / self defense hijack is absurd, but carry on I suppose. What was it you said? "I shan't be joining you in this"
  #154  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If someone threatens (or appears to threaten, whatever their intent) to use the inside of my body as their home, slowly grow by utilizing my nutrients, cause me periodic physical pain and nausea, permanently change the way my skin looks, then I'm sure as hell gonna use force to prevent them from doing this, even if they're very small. Maybe under some circumstances I might allow it, but that should be my choice, not the government's.
In Georgia, it's your choice up to a point (currently ~6 weeks).
  #155  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:04 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Why would intent matter? If some stranger is pointing a gun at me, does it matter (with regards to whether I can engage in deadly force) whether they're intending to kill me or whether they're doing it by accident? I'm pretty sure the law does not require ill intent to be established for self-defense, as long as the person in question has reasonable fear of bodily harm.

Based on the incredible damage pregnancy can do to women's bodies and health, then it's entirely possible that a woman might have legitimate and reasonable fear of harm to their body, health, and even life. The intent of the fetus doesn't matter at all, if we're using the same basis as for self-defense.
If intent did not matter you could kill every one at a gun range, every chef in a kitchen with a knife, or everyone who knows karate. The bodily harm also has to be imminent, you can't just kill someone because you think that down the line somewhere they could hurt you.

The person in the car next to mine could run me off the road and kill or seriously injure me, does that mean it is okay to shoot everyone who is driving a car.
  #156  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:09 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If someone threatens (or appears to threaten, whatever their intent) to use the inside of my body as their home, slowly grow by utilizing my nutrients, cause me periodic physical pain and nausea, permanently change the way my skin looks, then I'm sure as hell gonna use force to prevent them from doing this, even if they're very small. Maybe under some circumstances I might allow it, but that should be my choice, not the government's.
So you would also be in favor of repealing all the child neglect laws, elder neglect laws, and medical duty of care laws? Are you in favor of letting all vulnerable people be killed, or do you just hate babies?
  #157  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:10 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,365
Getting back to the OP (since this is turning into yet another abortion-in-general thread): If this bill was meant to be a challenge to Roe v. Wade, it sure doesn't seem like it will achieve its aim.
  #158  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Getting back to the OP (since this is turning into yet another abortion-in-general thread): If this bill was meant to be a challenge to Roe v. Wade, it sure doesn't seem like it will achieve its aim.
Why do you think this?
  #159  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
So you would also be in favor of repealing all the child neglect laws, elder neglect laws, and medical duty of care laws? Are you in favor of letting all vulnerable people be killed, or do you just hate babies?
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Everything I've written about my position on abortion comes from my belief that the right to control one's own body is paramount.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #160  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
If intent did not matter you could kill every one at a gun range, every chef in a kitchen with a knife, or everyone who knows karate. The bodily harm also has to be imminent, you can't just kill someone because you think that down the line somewhere they could hurt you.



The person in the car next to mine could run me off the road and kill or seriously injure me, does that mean it is okay to shoot everyone who is driving a car.
In this hypothetical, the fetus is already causing harm to the woman's body every day, regardless of its intent. The harm is not only imminent, but ongoing.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-09-2019 at 03:21 PM.
  #161  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Everything I've written about my position on abortion comes from my belief that the right to control one's own body is paramount.
If you were holding an infant in your arms, and, having the right to control one's own body of paramount importance, decided you didn't want to continue to support the infant's weight with your arms, using your body's resources (calories) and sustaining wear on tear on joints and muscles, do you think you should be free to just drop them, and let the cards fall where they may as it were? Or could other parties interested in the welfare of the infant (such as the state) intercede and obligate you to set the infant down gently, in a safe location, rather than letting them tumble the four or so feet onto an unknown surface and sustaining whatever harm comes of that?
  #162  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:30 PM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a man, and my aversion to abortion is that an innocent life is being destroyed.

I'm not elderly, but I oppose elder abuse. I'm not a wife, but I oppose wife-beating. I'm not a child, but I oppose child abuse. I'm not a fetus, but I oppose the legalized terminating of those lives.
Okay. That helps me understand where you are coming from a little. Are you saying that you think that the Georgia law's cutoff time is equivalent to when the fetus is a person? Or is it at another point?
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #163  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:31 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you were holding an infant in your arms, and, having the right to control one's own body of paramount importance, decided you didn't want to continue to support the infant's weight with your arms, using your body's resources (calories) and sustaining wear on tear on joints and muscles, do you think you should be free to just drop them, and let the cards fall where they may as it were? Or could other parties interested in the welfare of the infant (such as the state) intercede and obligate you to set the infant down gently, in a safe location, rather than letting them tumble the four or so feet onto an unknown surface and sustaining whatever harm comes of that?
This thread isn't about that. If you care to start a "Should you drop babies?" thread though, I would love to participate.
  #164  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:36 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
Okay. That helps me understand where you are coming from a little. Are you saying that you think that the Georgia law's cutoff time is equivalent to when the fetus is a person? Or is it at another point?
My personal belief is that life begins at conception. My understanding about the "when does it become a person?" debate is that we're really trying to decide, as a society, when and to what degree we bestow that life with legal rights. My preference would generally be to see it happen earlier in the pregnancy than usually happens today, but I am not particularly wedded to the idea that it must be at the point when our current medical instrumentation is capable of measuring the heartbeat (~6 weeks).
  #165  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This thread isn't about that. If you care to start a "Should you drop babies?" thread though, I would love to participate.
Sure, that's fair. I was just responding to another poster and wanted to understand how absolute he was in his "belief that the right to control one's own body is paramount", but I can understand why he might not want to respond to my query and why you'd be eager to steer the conversation away from that line of inquiry.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-09-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #166  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:40 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
This has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Everything I've written about my position on abortion comes from my belief that the right to control one's own body is paramount.
I have the paramount right to control my fist - it's part of my body. Therefore my right to control my fist is paramount, and I can use it to punch children.

Regards,
Shodan
  #167  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:42 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you can't understand that a live birth is something different from those two things (stillbirth or miscarriage), I guess I can't help you further.
Were you under the impression you were being helpful at some stage?

Quote:
No, I don't think it applies at all. First of all, I'm not sure a normal pregnancy and delivery (the reasonably likely outcome) amounts to "great bodily harm".
Ah, an arbitrary distinction. Easy to make when it's not your body undergoing the stress.

Quote:
Secondly, there are other options on the force continuum aside from deadly force when someone is facing a threat of violence, but violence that is not reasonably likely to result in death or great bodily harm. This whole SYG / self defense hijack is absurd, but carry on I suppose. What was it you said? "I shan't be joining you in this"
Oh, I'm just sussing out some basic inconsistencies in Georgia law and those who defend it.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #168  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,197
The right to bodily autonomy doesn't allow one to harm anyone else unless they are violating your right to bodily autonomy. It's quite simple. You can't punch someone unless they are harming you (or about to), you can put a baby down but you can't harm it (unless it's inside your body against your will), etc. It's not a hard concept to understand, even if many disagree.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #169  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:44 PM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My personal belief is that life begins at conception. My understanding about the "when does it become a person?" debate is that we're really trying to decide, as a society, when and to what degree we bestow that life with legal rights. My preference would generally be to see it happen earlier in the pregnancy than usually happens today, but I am not particularly wedded to the idea that it must be at the point when our current medical instrumentation is capable of measuring the heartbeat (~6 weeks).
Do you agree with removing the exclusions of rape and incest from the law as its written?
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #170  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:45 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I have the paramount right to control my fist - it's part of my body. Therefore my right to control my fist is paramount, and I can use it to punch children.
Nice leap there from control of your own body to control of someone else's.

Of course, if the child in question is inside your body at the time, punch away. It's too bad for the child, but punchability is location- and context-dependent. Ignoring that is foolish.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #171  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The right to bodily autonomy doesn't allow one to harm anyone else unless they are violating your right to bodily autonomy. It's quite simple. You can't punch someone unless they are harming you (or about to), you can put a baby down but you can't harm it (unless it's inside your body against your will), etc. It's not a hard concept to understand, even if many disagree.
I think we agree that an infant in your arms, if one changes his mind about wanting to hold that infant, is now violating one's bodily autonomy (but feel free to chime in if I've misunderstood you). Why then, is one obligated to "put it down", expending the extra calories to bend over and place it gently on the ground, risking a strained back or hip or knee injury, expending those extra calories involved in the effort, etc.? Why can't one just drop the baby? Surely you agree that's the most expeditious route to restoring one's bodily autonomy, right?
  #172  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:48 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, your quote says "miscarriage or stillbirth" (emphasis added) so a distinction is implicitly recognized, therefore "miscarriage" and "stillbirth" cannot be assumed to be synonymous, therefore the opposite of stillbirth ("live birth") cannot be assumed to be contradictory, and I stand by my usage.


Well, if that's how you want to define miscarriage, have at it. I shan't be joining you in this.



So are you on board with applying it to pregnancy, then? That would be reasonably consistent, given the facts about pregnancy and the toll it can take. If someone threatened to do to Johnny Guntoter what a pregnancy can do to a woman, can he defend himself or does he just have to take it?
I mean, do women want the police/court determining whether or not the fetus was going to cause great bodily injury or death to the woman? Or would they rather have a licensed physician make the call?
  #173  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think we agree that an infant in your arms, if one changes his mind about wanting to hold that infant, is now violating one's bodily autonomy (but feel free to chime in if I've misunderstood you). Why then, is one obligated to "put it down", expending the extra calories to bend over and place it gently on the ground, risking a strained back or hip or knee injury, expending those extra calories involved in the effort, etc.? Why can't one just drop the baby? Surely you agree that's the most expeditious route to restoring one's bodily autonomy, right?
Somehow I'm less than surprised that you have no actual understanding of bodily autonomy for women. No, you don't get it at all, and I have no interest in playing such a stupid game with you.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #174  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:54 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,935
I find it interesting that Georgia has a castle doctrine law on the books.

Only the conservative mind can think that shooting and killing someone trying to steal your TV is ok and a desirable outcome but a woman who was raped should go to jail for life for terminating an embryo put in her body against her will.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-09-2019 at 03:54 PM.
  #175  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:58 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think we agree that an infant in your arms, if one changes his mind about wanting to hold that infant, is now violating one's bodily autonomy (but feel free to chime in if I've misunderstood you). Why then, is one obligated to "put it down", expending the extra calories to bend over and place it gently on the ground, risking a strained back or hip or knee injury, expending those extra calories involved in the effort, etc.? Why can't one just drop the baby? Surely you agree that's the most expeditious route to restoring one's bodily autonomy, right?
Now that is how you do laughable hyperbole.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #176  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:59 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I mean, do women want the police/court determining whether or not the fetus was going to cause great bodily injury or death to the woman? Or would they rather have a licensed physician make the call?
Heck, I'm of the opinion that even if pregnancy was no more dangerous than a hangnail, it should still be the woman's choice whether or not to continue. The fact that pregnancy can be quite stressful, injurious or even lethal is useful mainly for trying to find out if the pro-lifer is capable of empathy, i.e. can they picture themselves in such a predicament and would they want a remedy if one existed. Ditka expressed empathy for elders who are being abused, wives who are being beaten, children who are being abused and fetuses who are being aborted, but not women with an unwanted pregnancy, which strikes me personally as a vaguely odd omission, but of course mileage varies.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #177  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:05 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
If intent did not matter you could kill every one at a gun range, every chef in a kitchen with a knife, or everyone who knows karate. The bodily harm also has to be imminent, you can't just kill someone because you think that down the line somewhere they could hurt you.

The person in the car next to mine could run me off the road and kill or seriously injure me, does that mean it is okay to shoot everyone who is driving a car.
Intent to do harm and imminent harm do not mean the same thing.
  #178  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
Do you agree with removing the exclusions of rape and incest from the law as its written?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I'd still support the law if lines 121-125 (and the reference on line 277) were removed?
  #179  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:16 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I'd still support the law if lines 121-125 (and the reference on line 277) were removed?
I think he is confusing the Georgia bill with the Alabama bill. BTW, do you support the Alabama bill as it is now written, which takes out the rape and incest exclusions?
  #180  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:23 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think he is confusing the Georgia bill with the Alabama bill. BTW, do you support the Alabama bill as it is now written, which takes out the rape and incest exclusions?
I haven't read it and don't know. Besides, "This thread isn't about that. If you care to start a "Should you drop babies? [What do you think of the Alabama abortion bill?]" thread though, I would love to participate."

Okay, a little needling aside, I genuinely don't have a firm position on cases of rape / incest. The debate is generally so far from the point where it's an issue that I haven't bothered to really refine / nail down my feelings on the subject, but I can generally see the competing interests between the innocent life of an unborn child, and the trauma a rape victim would have to endure by carrying her rapist's baby to term. I hope that serves as an explanation of my feelings on the matter (fuzzy as they are) without further sidetracking the thread into an area that's not at issue with the Georgia bill.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-09-2019 at 04:25 PM.
  #181  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:26 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In Georgia, it's your choice up to a point (currently ~6 weeks).
You already know this, but the bill eliminates choice by restricting it to a timeframe when most women don't even know they are pregnant. By the time they realize... too late to act. Which is the point, which you know, and I don't imagine it bothers you at all.
  #182  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:27 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I haven't read it and don't know. Besides, "This thread isn't about that. If you care to start a "Should you drop babies? [What do you think of the Alabama abortion bill?]" thread though, I would love to participate."

Okay, a little needling aside, I genuinely don't have a firm position on cases of rape / incest. The debate is generally so far from the point where it's an issue that I haven't bothered to really refine / nail down my feelings on the subject, but I can generally see the competing interests between the innocent life of an unborn child, and the trauma a rape victim would have to endure by carrying her rapist's baby to term. I hope that serves as an explanation of my feelings on the matter (fuzzy as they are) without further sidetracking the thread into an area that's not at issue with the Georgia bill.
Fair enough.
  #183  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
You already know this, but the bill eliminates choice by restricting it to a timeframe when most women don't even know they are pregnant. By the time they realize... too late to act. Which is the point, which you know, and I don't imagine it bothers you at all.
I actually don't know this. I'm confident there are some women that aren't aware they're pregnant at 6 weeks, but is it "most"? I don't think I've ever seen any data on the matter. Do you have any evidence you'd like to share to support your assertion?
  #184  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:39 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I actually don't know this. I'm confident there are some women that aren't aware they're pregnant at 6 weeks, but is it "most"? I don't think I've ever seen any data on the matter. Do you have any evidence you'd like to share to support your assertion?
Well, there's the wiki page on menstruation and its surprising lack of references to atomic-clock-level regularity.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #185  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:42 PM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think he is confusing the Georgia bill with the Alabama bill. BTW, do you support the Alabama bill as it is now written, which takes out the rape and incest exclusions?
I worded my question poorly. I was listening to NPR talk about the Alabama version of this, and it seems that the states are in a big rush to be the most restrictive on abortion rights, so I wanted to ask HD if he would support that change to the law that Georgia signed being changed in that way. Its seems to me that its only a matter of time that they try to do that in Georgia.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #186  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:46 PM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I haven't read it and don't know. Besides, "This thread isn't about that. If you care to start a "Should you drop babies? [What do you think of the Alabama abortion bill?]" thread though, I would love to participate."

Okay, a little needling aside, I genuinely don't have a firm position on cases of rape / incest. The debate is generally so far from the point where it's an issue that I haven't bothered to really refine / nail down my feelings on the subject, but I can generally see the competing interests between the innocent life of an unborn child, and the trauma a rape victim would have to endure by carrying her rapist's baby to term. I hope that serves as an explanation of my feelings on the matter (fuzzy as they are) without further sidetracking the thread into an area that's not at issue with the Georgia bill.
Okay, that was the answer I was looking for anyway about it.

The reasons I was asking the questions were more to do about trying to understand if you were more "republicans rock I support everything they do" or more of a philosophical supporter of the measure. I can get the philosophical angle you have on the issue. I don't maybe agree with it but I can at least understand where you are coming from.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #187  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:32 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,447
I want to drag this back to the fundamental point of the Georgia law: that even a zygote is a "natural person." All the speculation, all the confusion, comes down to this simple concept: sperm cell meets ovum, and bam, natural personhood. A natural person is guaranteed all the individual rights listed in the Constitution. The ramifications are endless, and that's where this gets complex and where all the speculation, logical or illogical, likely or unlikely, arises.

You can imagine the backroom talk among the legislators:

OK, if it's a person, does it qualify as an income tax deduction?

Sure!

What about child support?

Heck, yeah--well, for medical care and maternity clothes and stuff, anyway.

What about if a woman is raped?

Uh...hmm..OK, she can murder that innocent natural person resulting from the rape. But only up to 20 weeks and IF she reports the rape to the police.

But we said it's a natural person and has rights!

Quit confusing us, Richard.

Sorry. But what about miscarriage?

We'll put that right in the bill: if a woman unintentionally causes a miscarriage, she's OK.

But if I unintentionally murder a natural person, I can be charged with negligent homicide. How is unintentional murder different if the natural person who dies is a zygote?

Richard, you idiot, it's only a natural person when we WANT it to be a natural person. Now quit being a Dick.
  #188  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:46 PM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I want to drag this back to the fundamental point of the Georgia law: that even a zygote is a "natural person." All the speculation, all the confusion, comes down to this simple concept: sperm cell meets ovum, and bam, natural personhood. A natural person is guaranteed all the individual rights listed in the Constitution. The ramifications are endless, and that's where this gets complex and where all the speculation, logical or illogical, likely or unlikely, arises.

You can imagine the backroom talk among the legislators:

OK, if it's a person, does it qualify as an income tax deduction?

Sure!

What about child support?

Heck, yeah--well, for medical care and maternity clothes and stuff, anyway.

What about if a woman is raped?

Uh...hmm..OK, she can murder that innocent natural person resulting from the rape. But only up to 20 weeks and IF she reports the rape to the police.

But we said it's a natural person and has rights!

Quit confusing us, Richard.

Sorry. But what about miscarriage?

We'll put that right in the bill: if a woman unintentionally causes a miscarriage, she's OK.

But if I unintentionally murder a natural person, I can be charged with negligent homicide. How is unintentional murder different if the natural person who dies is a zygote?

Richard, you idiot, it's only a natural person when we WANT it to be a natural person. Now quit being a Dick.

You perfectly described why I am stuck on this.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #189  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:47 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think we agree that an infant in your arms, if one changes his mind about wanting to hold that infant, is now violating one's bodily autonomy (but feel free to chime in if I've misunderstood you). Why then, is one obligated to "put it down", expending the extra calories to bend over and place it gently on the ground, risking a strained back or hip or knee injury, expending those extra calories involved in the effort, etc.? Why can't one just drop the baby? Surely you agree that's the most expeditious route to restoring one's bodily autonomy, right?
I think that the fact that you're equating a painless act that takes seconds with an "act" that takes literally months, causes significant discomfort and even pain for extended periods of time, and which has a reasonable probability of literally incarcerating the person for extended periods of bedrest and an increased possibility of death -- all that is very explicitly placing a value on the woman's time, feelings, and life. And that value is "essentially worthless".

I could just as fairly say "if you're standing in my way, is it reasonable for me to get the government to make you step aside? In that case it's similarly reasonable for me to have the government get you out of my way by throwing you in jail for six months while beating you regularly with socks full of pennies."
  #190  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:54 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I actually don't know this. I'm confident there are some women that aren't aware they're pregnant at 6 weeks, but is it "most"? I don't think I've ever seen any data on the matter. Do you have any evidence you'd like to share to support your assertion?
I do not know if there is any science on this but you can find loads of anecdotal evidence.

It seems the earliest a woman knows is 3-4 weeks into the pregnancy.

Six weeks seems a very common refrain and occasionally a good deal more than that.

Obviously, when she knows will depend on many factors (e.g. is she trying to get pregnant, does she have a regular cycle, is she under a lot of stress...tons of reasons affect it). Needless to say irregular menstrual cycles are not at all uncommon.

So, about the best a woman could hope for in Georgia is a two week window to decide to get an abortion and obtain one. Of course Georgia puts other roadblocks in her way such as mandatory, state-directed counseling and then a 24 hour waiting period and if she is a minor her parents must be notified except in the case of rape or incest.

Many, many women will not even suspect they are pregnant till the window has closed for them to obtain one.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-09-2019 at 05:55 PM.
  #191  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Obviously, when she knows will depend on many factors (e.g. is she trying to get pregnant, does she have a regular cycle, is she under a lot of stress...tons of reasons affect it). Needless to say irregular menstrual cycles are not at all uncommon.
Not only that, but some women actually have some menstruation-like "symptoms" even after they're pregnant.
  #192  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:00 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
You perfectly described why I am stuck on this.
It is only confusing if you try to make a zygote a legal human being with all the rights that pertain to one.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #193  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:11 PM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It is only confusing if you try to make a zygote a legal human being with all the rights that pertain to one.
Maybe I'm also confused as to how all of a sudden the new being has more power than the existing being. Especially when the new being isn't viable yet. This is too "woman is farm animal" to me. I'm not a woman though, so I can't say to have an authority on it.


I don't know the way that Georgia did it just melts my brain. It doesn't seem to be something that would stand up to a court challenge. I guess that from someone like HD's perspective, there is no money wasted that would delay some abortions from happening. (Not to speak for him) It just seems like pissing tax dollars away trying to throw a law out there that won't ultimately ever go into effect.

I don't understand why he would want to spend his state's tax money that way when there are people going without food there.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #194  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:19 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
I don't know the way that Georgia did it just melts my brain. It doesn't seem to be something that would stand up to a court challenge. I guess that from someone like HD's perspective, there is no money wasted that would delay some abortions from happening. (Not to speak for him) It just seems like pissing tax dollars away trying to throw a law out there that won't ultimately ever go into effect.
It will almost certainly fail every court challenge till the Supreme Court which is where they want this to go.

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court can use this case (if they feel like it) to re-write Casey (which supersedes Roe) as the overarching ruling on abortion in the US.

Chances are they will feel like it. If there is one thing conservatives expect from conservative supreme court justices it is making abortion illegal in the US. Hard to say how far the justices will go but they'll almost certainly make abortion even more restrictive than it is now (or rather let states and/or the fed make it more restrictive).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-09-2019 at 06:20 PM.
  #195  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:33 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
As a side note, it's a tad refreshing to see Georgia embracing the 14th Amendment instead of viewing it (and its older brother, the 13th) as manifestations of Northern Aggression.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #196  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:41 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I actually don't know this. I'm confident there are some women that aren't aware they're pregnant at 6 weeks, but is it "most"? I don't think I've ever seen any data on the matter. Do you have any evidence you'd like to share to support your assertion?
Burden of proof is on you, the Male Dean of Women's Biology, to tell us about the signs of pregnancy that are evident at 6 weeks when one isn't expecting it. Please proceed. This should be good.
  #197  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Burden of proof is on you...
No, it's not actually. You're the one that made the claim without any data to back it up.
  #198  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:52 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I actually don't know this. I'm confident there are some women that aren't aware they're pregnant at 6 weeks, but is it "most"? I don't think I've ever seen any data on the matter. Do you have any evidence you'd like to share to support your assertion?

Seriously? No data? What about your life? I thought you were a dad?

My kid was born 10.10.01. A conception calculator puts the date of conception somewhere on 1.15.01.

Laura did the at-home pregnancy test on 2.9.01. Positive. End of week 4.

Appointment at doc was 2.14.09, Weds. 5 weeks. 3, 4 days until the 6th week.

Last edited by JohnT; 05-09-2019 at 07:54 PM.
  #199  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:08 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, it's not actually. You're the one that made the claim without any data to back it up.
It's almost like you don't know any women or mothers. That or you are just being difficult.

It would seem to me the side that wants to change the laws to restrict abortion to six weeks need to show why six weeks makes sense and is not overly onerus.

Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey (the main controlling case on abortion rights today) ruled that states can restrict abortion that are not "substantial obstacles" or an "undue burden" for women seeking an abortion.

So, the onus is on you to tell us why this is not an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-09-2019 at 08:09 PM.
  #200  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:23 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
What's so magical about a fetal heartbeat, anyway? I thought we were past romanticizing the heart - it's just a pump, really, muscle tissue flexing over and over.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017