Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:28 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,891
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.
I am not making any such claim. I am pointing out that if you suggest a woman has choice within a 6-week limit, this rests on the supposition she has knowledge of the pregnancy within that 6 week limit, and I challenge you to provide any kind of proof that said supposition is true.

You can't and you won't, partly because you have no knowledge of how pregnancy works, but mostly because you really don't give a damn whether a woman has a choice or not, and you're too cowardly to say it.
  #202  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:44 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,310
In regards to my timeline above, I would like to note that Laura and I were trying for a child and were looking for any sign whatsoever that our efforts were fruitful. And we still didn't know until the end of week four, and it wasn't confirmed by a doctor until the middle of week five.
  #203  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:44 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I am not making any such claim. I am pointing out that if you suggest a woman has choice within a 6-week limit, this rests on the supposition she has knowledge of the pregnancy within that 6 week limit, and I challenge you to provide any kind of proof that said supposition is true.

You can't and you won't, partly because you have no knowledge of how pregnancy works, but mostly because you really don't give a damn whether a woman has a choice or not, and you're too cowardly to say it.
I'm pretty sure he would rather ban all abortions, with the possible exceptions of rape and incest, so it's not that he doesn't care whether she has a choice, he wants to take away the choice. Although, from his perspective, it's that the fetus has a right to life, which overrides her choice.

I'd love to get back to discussing the implications of a fetus being a natural person - does it change the age of the resulting person? Could someone claim they can drink at 21 minus 7 months, since they became a person seven months earlier than their birthdate?

Can someone address the conspiracy to commit murder I mentioned above? It's clear that the Slate article was discussing the implications of fetal personhood when discussing jail time, etc. Once a fetus is a person, then killing it is murder, likely premeditated at that. Drinking or taking drugs could be deranged indifference to human life or maybe contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The reason why the law doesn't have to mention those things is that they follow from personhood. If a law deemed a chimp or dog or houseplant as a natural person, then killing it would be murder, etc. It is very disingenuous of those saying that those implications aren't in the law. They don't have to be - they follow from personhood.
  #204  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:00 PM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,406
Here is an article that discusses a study of 136 women who were trying, and succeeded, to get pregnant. 50% of them reported some symptoms of pregnancy by Week 5. Given the fact that Week 6 is too late under this bill, one would think that a woman needs to be aware of her pregnancy by the fifth week in order to schedule and undergo a legal abortion. Yet, according to this study, half of all pregnant women don't know that they are pregnant by Week 5.
  #205  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:02 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,310
To be even more precise, half of women who were actively searching for signs of pregnancy saw these signs week 6 and later.
  #206  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:09 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
To be even more precise, half of women who were actively searching for signs of pregnancy saw these signs week 6 and later.
I think it's also important to highlight what said (from that article) symptoms are:

Pregnancy symptoms at 4 weeks
Normally you get your period about 4 weeks from the start of your last period, but if you're pregnant, the clearest sign at this point is a missed period. Many women still feel fine at 4 weeks, but others may notice sore breasts, fatigue, frequent urination, and nausea. About one-third of women experience nausea at 4 weeks of pregnancy.

Pregnancy symptoms at 5 weeks
While your baby grows at a dizzying pace in your uterus, you may be growing more aware of pregnancy-related discomforts, including fatigue, achy or swollen breasts, nausea, and more frequent trips to the bathroom.

Again, a woman who is likely to get an abortion is not looking for these signs, because she isn't trying to get pregnant. She may not realize she's a little tired or nauseated because she's pregnant. She may put it off to a bug or stress.
  #207  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:10 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
She went into labor well before her fetus was independently viable. She miscarried.
Nope.

Viability is 50-80% at 25 weeks, 80-90% at 26 weeks, and >90% at 27 weeks.
  #208  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:18 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,310
Those statistics say nothing about her pregnancy.
  #209  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:20 PM
Shagunathor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Nope.

Viability is 50-80% at 25 weeks, 80-90% at 26 weeks, and >90% at 27 weeks.
But is 2-10% at 22 weeks, which is the age of the pregnancy referred to.
  #210  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:37 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,438
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.
How do you feel about immigrant abuse?

How do you feel about someone breaking into your house and eating your food? Then let's say the government...nay, the federal government...says you have to let them stay for nine months despite their only goal, their only sentience is their own survival and not yours? Wouldnt you rather shoot them and claim stand your ground?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #211  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:44 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a man, and my aversion to abortion is that an innocent life is being destroyed.
It is really weird to equate a zygote with a walking, talking human.

I assume you eat meat and if you do then you are fine with killing living things.

An adult cow is far, far more evolved and conscious than a human zygote.

But you are ok with killing the cow for consumption because you like burgers but have a problem with someone else terminating a zygote that might kill them.

I submit your priorities are messed up.
__________________
"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
  #212  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:23 PM
elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,231
Please explain why Dougís body autonomy protects him from being forced to sacrifice an organ to save his brotherís life, but itís okay to deny a womanís body autonomy and force her to deliver a child, BECAUSE thereís a life at stake.

If he can say no, to saving his brother, why is she forced to save a life against HER wishes for HER body. If his body autonomy canít be sacrificed to save a life, why can hers?

You seem reluctant to address this obvious double standard.
  #213  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:23 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shagunathor View Post
But is 2-10% at 22 weeks, which is the age of the pregnancy referred to.
I think it also safe to assume that even those low percentages are heavily dependent on prompt medical care, i.e. the premature delivery takes place in a hospital, so basically I have no idea what D'Anconia is objecting to.
  #214  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:36 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Please explain why Dougís body autonomy protects him from being forced to sacrifice an organ to save his brotherís life, but itís okay to deny a womanís body autonomy and force her to deliver a child, BECAUSE thereís a life at stake.

If he can say no, to saving his brother, why is she forced to save a life against HER wishes for HER body. If his body autonomy canít be sacrificed to save a life, why can hers?

You seem reluctant to address this obvious double standard.
I'm not seeing this.

There is a difference between taking a life and saving a life.

You are under no obligation to save a life.

You are under a prohibition against taking a life.

Those opposed to abortion are claiming you are taking a life.
__________________
"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
  #215  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:52 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I'm not seeing this.

There is a difference between taking a life and saving a life.

You are under no obligation to save a life.

You are under a prohibition against taking a life.

Those opposed to abortion are claiming you are taking a life.
Well, those opposed to abortion can claim whatever they like, but if the difference between donating a kidney and continuing a pregnancy seems too wide, try this:

John donates blood regularly. It is discovered through this that he has a rare blood type and his donations are being used to sustain the life of a recipient who has the same blood type. Is John obliged to continue donating blood once he learns of this, or can John choose to stop? Could John choose to stop even if he is in the middle of a donation at the time?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #216  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:58 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, those opposed to abortion can claim whatever they like, but if the difference between donating a kidney and continuing a pregnancy seems too wide, try this:

John donates blood regularly. It is discovered through this that he has a rare blood type and his donations are being used to sustain the life of a recipient who has the same blood type. Is John obliged to continue donating blood once he learns of this, or can John choose to stop? Could John choose to stop even if he is in the middle of a donation at the time?
No.

Again, you are under NO obligation to save a life (maybe doctors are...not sure how far their oath extends legally).

Morally you may well feel there is a very strong compulsion to do so and you would be a shit if you didn't but you do not *have* to do it.

I get where you are going and I agree with you on a moral level. Maybe even an ethical level but not a legal level.
__________________
"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 10:59 PM.
  #217  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:11 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
I'm not entirely certain what you're objecting to. In any case, legal standards are even more arbitrary than moral or ethical ones - at least morals and ethics generally have to relate somehow to real-world consequences, while legislation can be based on pure fantasy.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #218  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:14 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'm not entirely certain what you're objecting to. In any case, legal standards are even more arbitrary than moral or ethical ones - at least morals and ethics generally have to relate somehow to real-world consequences, while legislation can be based on pure fantasy.
And legislation based on religion is fanatsy2
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #219  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:23 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,209

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
You can't and you won't, partly because you have no knowledge of how pregnancy works, but mostly because you really don't give a damn whether a woman has a choice or not, and you're too cowardly to say it.
This is a warning for personal insults. If you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.

[/moderating]
  #220  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:48 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'm not entirely certain what you're objecting to. In any case, legal standards are even more arbitrary than moral or ethical ones - at least morals and ethics generally have to relate somehow to real-world consequences, while legislation can be based on pure fantasy.
Are you legally obligated to run into a burning building to try and save people?

You are trying to make a case that being forced to continue a pregnancy is akin to being forced to donate a kidney.

I am on your side (I think). I just do not think this is a good argument and that is what I was trying to highlight in my last few posts responding to you.
__________________
"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
  #221  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:55 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,438
I liken it to being forced to rush into a burning building to save the arsonist that literally knows absolutely nothing except how to ruin your life.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #222  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:04 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My personal belief is that life begins at conception.
Why do you believe this? Do you have scientific cites? Or is it just a ridiculous "feel" you deride libtards for?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #223  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:40 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Why do you believe this? Do you have scientific cites? Or is it just a ridiculous "feel" you deride libtards for?
Sure. Here's a couple of them:

Quote:
Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon) from a male. (p. 2); … but the embryo begins to develop as soon as the oocyte is fertilized. (p. 2); … Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. (p. 18)
- Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.)



Quote:
Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.
- Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd ed.



A sincere question for you, snfaulkner: When do you think human life begins?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-10-2019 at 12:42 AM.
  #224  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:14 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure. Here's a couple of them:



- Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.)





- Ronan OíRahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd ed.



A sincere question for you, snfaulkner: When do you think human life begins?

It began millions of years ago. Outside a lab, dead sperm or dead eggs won't continue life.

Thanks for the cites though. Im glad you have them. I certainly hope they aren't cut and pasted from some religious talking point memo, because that would just be...disingenuous. I'll dig into them tomorrow. Expect a response right about the time you get back to me about Timmy McV. (If someone less lazy can kindly link Ditka to my non-pit thread on the subject, thanks)*

My point is, your concerns about "life" seem dubious, at best.

*oh wait, I [i]already[i] responded to your query. Did you respond to my thread? I'll admit again that I'm lazy and haven't checked in on mine in quiet a while.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #225  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:42 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
For the people claiming that the law doesn't specifically punish the woman for having an abortion after the heartbeat is detected, can you address the personhood provisions of the law? It seems to me that if a fetus is a person with 14th amendment rights, then killing that person would come with punishment. Leaving the state to kill that person and then returning would also be punished.

I'm not a lawyer. But, if the law defines a non-rape fetus as a person, then it doesn't have to lay out all the rest of it -- the other implications come along with personhood.

Ultravires, regarding the rape and incest exception especially, can those fetuses be aborted any time? Are they never granted personhood? How about after birth?
The law says that all unborn children/fetuses (however I describe it, I don't mean to make an issue out of the term) are natural persons. There is some misunderstandings in the thread, so the law needs to be read.

1) Again, ALL unborn children are natural persons, no matter if they have a heartbeat.

2) Those natural persons who are unborn children and do not yet have a detectable heartbeat may be aborted based upon a woman's choice, for rape or incest, or these other things outlined in the code, i.e. to save the life of the mother, if the pregnancy is "medically futile" etc.

3) Those natural persons who have a heartbeat, and were conceived as a result of rape or incest, may be aborted up to 20 weeks gestation, all other exceptions apply.

4) Those natural persons who are greater than 20 weeks gestation may be aborted for the other exceptions.

5) If someone performs an abortion outside of these bounds, it is not murder, but is "criminal abortion" which punishes only the doctor and is punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison.


The law will definitely cause an issue by calling unborn children "persons" and cause confusion in some cases and make a few lawyers' payday, however, it is not at all unusual to treat "natural persons" differently because of reasonable understanding of status and competing rights.

I am a natural person and have the right not to be killed, but if a homeowner catches me breaking into his house, I may forfeit that right. I am a natural person who has the right to vote, but my daughter, age 15, does not. Unless the classification is based on a racial or other status that we as a society deem to be irrelevant for classification, states can say that these natural persons have X rights, but these natural persons have Y rights.

Likewise, the state of Georgia, even though it says that all (again, read the law, all of them) are natural persons, it does not follow that the competing rights of the mother to control her pregnancy, while concededly very limited under Georgia law, may serve to disallow the unborn child's right to life. But only those circumstances; not these fanciful stand your ground hypotheticals.

And finally, so it could be put to bed, if a woman who is 25 weeks pregnant agrees with her friend to buy plane tickets from Hartsfield International Airport to LaGuardia and get a legal elective abortion in New York, nobody has shown me a decent legal argument (despite the bullshit from Slate) that either of them has committed a violation of Georgia law.

It is not conspiracy, because they did not agree to violate a law. A 25 week abortion in New York is not a crime, so they did not have an agreement to commit any crime.
  #226  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:04 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Georgia defines the fetus as a person. My friend Bob who lives in Florida is also a person.

My wife and I conspire in Georgia (draw up plans, get the gun, etc.) to travel to Florida to kill Bob. I'm still not a lawyer, but it seems likely that Georgia could prosecute us for conspiracy to commit murder.

It seems further likely that Georgia could treat our plans to travel to Florida to get an abortion exactly the same way.
No, because the murder of Bob in Florida is a crime under Florida law. Full stop. If you agreed in Georgia to travel to Florida to kill Bob, then Georgia has the power to punish that agreement to break the law. As I said above, if two women agree to travel to New York to get an abortion, that is legal in New York, so there was no agreement to commit a crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Officer, I was well within my rights -- this person wouldn't leave my body and was taking my body's resources without my permission."
The State can recognize the unique relationship a child has with its mother in utero. We were all there at one time. The argument can be one of necessity; it would be absurd to say that every person who has ever existed committed a crime worthy of summary execution by the circumstances of the very existence of the human race. So the analogy of a child in its mother's womb to a home invader is woefully inaccurate.

Further, and I'll get blasted for this, but a competing argument could be made that the child was invited in. We all know where babies come from. If a woman allows a man to ejaculate inside of her, she also knows that she produces eggs which can cause a child to be formed. If she was raped, Georgia law provides an extended period of time to make the choice to expel the unwanted invader.

And even if you believe it is fully accurate, somewhat accurate, or not at all accurate, that decision is left to the elected representatives selected by the people of Georgia.
  #227  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And even if you believe it is fully accurate, somewhat accurate, or not at all accurate, that decision is left to the elected representatives selected by the people of Georgia.
It shouldn't be, any more than the decision about slavery should be left to elected reps. It's wrong and should not be possible for violating the bodily autonomy rights of an adult of sound mind to be legal.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 04:23 AM.
  #228  
Old 05-10-2019, 06:03 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,558

The Moderator Speaks


That's enough with the vitriol from everyone. If you can't be civil, don't interact at all.
  #229  
Old 05-10-2019, 06:35 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure. Here's a couple of them:
I see you like the "unique genetic individual" concept. How do you feel about identical twins or the looming spectre of human cloning?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #230  
Old 05-10-2019, 06:52 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure. Here's a couple of them:


- Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.)


- Ronan OíRahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd ed.
So, by this token if you start to dig a up some ground with the intent to build a new house and I come and fill in the hole you dug over night have I destroyed your house?

I mean, your hole, while similar to many others, was unique and the house you were going to build would have been unique too. Should I go to jail for wrecking your home?
__________________
"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
  #231  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:26 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
UltraVires, since you have read the law, can you explain why they define fetuses to be natural persons then? Is it just for census and tax deduction purposes? This is a genuine question -- usually, if you kill a natural person (barring self-defense, war, or other rare exceptions), it's murder. This law apparently states it's not murder to kill a fetus. Further, if you conspire to kill a natural person, it's conspiracy to commit, but that's also lined out. Obviously, the fetus is too young to drink, vote, or drive.

What are the implications, aside from a tax deduction and the rare pregnancy that happens during the 10-year census, of the natural persons definition? Can you be guilty of abuse if you drink, smoke, or take drugs during your pregnancy? What about if your drinking too much coffee causes a miscarriage -- could that be a crime?
  #232  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:31 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
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.
(bolding mine)

It is not as far from the point as you might think:

Quote:
An 11-year-old rape victim in northwestern Ohio is pregnant, according to news reports, and a highly restrictive state law on abortion signed last month says a girl in her position must carry and deliver her rapist’s baby.

In arguing the abortion issue I used to test the zealotry of my anti-choice opponents with a hypothetical question with similar facts, and was often told such a situation was too far-fetched to be probative. But now the hypothetical is real.

SOURCE: Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes.
I recall an abortion discussion on these boards many years ago where the conservatives then poo-pooed the notion as fear mongering that a woman might be prosecuted for a miscarriage yet here we are.

This time we, sadly, did not have to wait so long to see your "far from the point" issue is not so far from the point.

So, in your view, should that 11 year-old girl be forced to carry her rapist's baby?
__________________
"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; 05-10-2019 at 07:32 AM.
  #233  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:10 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
(bolding mine)

It is not as far from the point as you might think:
Perhaps, but still not there yet (and probably several years away, at least). From your cite:

Quote:
The new restrictions arenít scheduled to go into effect until mid-July and will almost certainly be stayed by federal judges as challenges to such brazen violations of Roe make their way up the appeals process. If the girl decides to end her pregnancy, she will be able to.
Anyways, as I've said already, I don't have a firm position on the issue yet. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale is appropriate, not unlike what Georgia has, where the woman is given the more time (22 weeks instead of 6 weeks) to decide whether to abort or not. I'm open to hearing other plans that try to balance the competing interests of the innocent baby's right to life and the victimized woman's right to avoid further trauma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I recall an abortion discussion on these boards many years ago where the conservatives then poo-pooed the notion as fear mongering that a woman might be prosecuted for a miscarriage yet here we are.
Wait, are you still claiming that women in Georgia are going to be prosecuted for miscarriages? I thought we dispensed with that nonsense already.
  #234  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:53 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Anyways, as I've said already, I don't have a firm position on the issue yet. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale is appropriate, not unlike what Georgia has, where the woman is given the more time (22 weeks instead of 6 weeks) to decide whether to abort or not. I'm open to hearing other plans that try to balance the competing interests of the innocent baby's right to life and the victimized woman's right to avoid further trauma.
Oh, so you're willing to "hearing other plans" on restrictions of "victimized women's rights"? "A sliding scale" then -- like an inquiry into whether it was it 'rape rape' or merely 'rape'?. How generous of you. I know I'll sleep better at night just knowing that you feel there is room for genuine compromise.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #235  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:14 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 53,278
Hell, the Catholic Church thinks performing an abortion on a nine year old pregnant with twins is WRONG. The mother and the doctor were automatically excommunicated. But who was not excommunicated? The stepfather who raped her and got her pregnant.

When I discussed this case with a Catholic anti-abort (who hands out flyers saying abortion might make men go gay), and said "Carrying the twins would have killed her, she replied "You don't know that. God could have let her carrying them to term to save three lives."
  #236  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:38 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Why do you believe this? Do you have scientific cites? Or is it just a ridiculous "feel" you deride libtards for?
Don't fall into this dumb trap.

Yes, life begins at conception, whether it's a human zygote, or the tick that I burned out of my armpit with a match head yesterday (don't @ me, that's just how I do it).

Like an embryo, the tick has no consciousness, and some sort of heart activity. It's on us, as the humans who will have to support that life, to decide when it becomes a thing worth valuing. Primarily the human person who will have to carry that pregnancy and who will be saddled with primary legal responsibility by default, which we typically call "the woman".

For purposes of deciding when a fetus becomes a human life worth protecting, I feel like a pretty good bright line is when (A) it's medically possible to transfer custody to someone who wants to raise it, and (B) some person or entity is willing or able to accept custody.

Funny thing about all these abortion bills is that there's never any mention of the state banking the embryo to help the infertile, or allowing someone to contest custody of the fetus to assume caregiving duties. That's because this is always and only punishing women for being pregnant, when all pregnancies are 100% caused by men mismanaging their semen. (Edited: or managing it. I managed mine very carefully to have the number of kids I hoped for).

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 05-10-2019 at 09:39 AM.
  #237  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:41 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
I don't think pro-choicers or pro-lifers should be drawing the lines of the abortion debate at whether life begins at conception or not. Even if it does, the argument could still be made that the mother's body is the mother's body. I highly doubt pro-choicers are going to be change their stance on abortion based off of some philosophical definition of when life begins.
  #238  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:53 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Oh, so you're willing to "hearing other plans" on restrictions of "victimized women's rights"? "A sliding scale" then -- like an inquiry into whether it was it 'rape rape' or merely 'rape'?. How generous of you. I know I'll sleep better at night just knowing that you feel there is room for genuine compromise.
Well, it is nice hearing one of them admit that "life starts at conception" doesn't automatically preclude ending that life under circumstances of our choice. Too bad they want men to own most of that choice and none of the consequences.
  #239  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:57 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
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.
In the conservative mind it is okay for someone to shoot a thief who is robbing them but it is not okay to kill a baby. What part are you having trouble with? The shooting of the thief or the not killing a baby?
  #240  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:08 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 53,278
I have trouble with the idea that tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life is not wrong. A rapist could demand visitation and even custody as the baby's father.

Before abortion was legal I knew a woman who finally left her extremely abusive husband. He broke into her apartment, beat the hell out of her and raped her (all legal at the time). She got pregnant

Rather than being tied to this man for the rest of her life as her baby's legal "father" she had an illegal abortion.
  #241  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:13 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
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.
At the federal level a baby has to have a social security number to be able to be claimed as a deduction. The social security number is assigned at birth, state income tax may be different.

Some people think that aborting children of rape or abortion is okay. That is not logically consistent but a product of the disgust at the action of rape or incest. This belief is widespread enough that it there may not be support for outlawing abortion unless there are exemptions for rape or incest. Thus anti-abortion legislators are willing to make a compromise that outlaws 99% of abortions instead of 100%.

There is lots of precedent on laws that punish offenses differently depending on the victim. For instance some places add additional punishments for killing cops, raping children, or attacking members of a hated group. Since most women would only get a few abortions in their lives while a doctor performs thousands, it makes sense to punish the doctors in order to prevent the most abortions.

You can imagine the backroom talk among the legislators opposing the bill.

So they want to outlaw abortions?

Yes, they do.

But if they do that where will we get the baby blood to bathe in that keeps me young?

You will have to find it somewhere else?

But I have a hard time becoming aroused unless I am watching a sonogram of a baby being ripped apart in its mother's womb.

Well you may have to try viagra?

But that costs money and I spend all mine on traveling to Thailand to have sex without underage sex slaves.


Too bad
  #242  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:15 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
I have trouble with the idea that tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life is not wrong. A rapist could demand visitation and even custody as the baby's father.

Before abortion was legal I knew a woman who finally left her extremely abusive husband. He broke into her apartment, beat the hell out of her and raped her (all legal at the time). She got pregnant

Rather than being tied to this man for the rest of her life as her baby's legal "father" she had an illegal abortion.
Perhaps there is a way to deal with this that doesn't involve killing the baby?
Maybe deny legal parental rights to rapists?
  #243  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:22 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Perhaps there is a way to deal with this that doesn't involve killing the baby?
Maybe deny legal parental rights to rapists?
You mean accepting your personal belief that an impregnated egg is a baby, then moving on from there?
  #244  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:27 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You mean accepting your personal belief that an impregnated egg is a baby, then moving on from there?
My personal beliefs do not affect objective reality, either the baby is real or it is not.
  #245  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:30 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
My personal beliefs do not affect objective reality, either the baby is real or it is not.
You can't get to that point without assuming that a fertilized egg is a baby. You don't get to start the discussion with, "Now that it is established that my point of view is correct, where do we go from there?".
  #246  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:34 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Since there has already been an argument about the definition of a miscarriage, can we at least get the definition of baby correct? As a fertilized egg develops, it goes from blastocyst to zygote to fetus, right? It's not a baby until it comes out. Please stop calling fetuses babies - it's incorrect and emotionally manipulative.
  #247  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:54 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Please stop calling fetuses babies - it's incorrect and emotionally manipulative.
That's the entire point, which is why nobody is going to stop.
  #248  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:56 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
My personal beliefs do not affect objective reality, either the baby is real or it is not.
The objective reality is that neither a zygote nor a fetus is a baby. Happy we could help you clear that up. Where would you like to go from here?
  #249  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:56 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
That's the entire point, which is why nobody is going to stop.
If it were me, on this board, I'd want to persuade others on the strength of my arguments. I know why politicians pull that crap, but I don't get it here.
  #250  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:04 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
You can imagine the backroom talk among the legislators opposing the bill.

So they want to outlaw abortions?

Yes, they do.

But if they do that where will we get the baby blood to bathe in that keeps me young?

You will have to find it somewhere else?

But I have a hard time becoming aroused unless I am watching a sonogram of a baby being ripped apart in its mother's womb.

Well you may have to try viagra?

But that costs money and I spend all mine on traveling to Thailand to have sex without underage sex slaves.


Too bad
This is certainly a good-faith, civil, and not-insane characterization of the opposition, which will definitely not get a warning. Just kidding, one of the preceding clauses is untrue.
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 12:08 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