Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:11 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Perhaps there is a way to deal with this that doesn't involve killing the baby?
Just so we're clear, you think it's appropriate for the government to use force to ensure that a young girl feels, physically (and emotionally, of course) the after-effects of a traumatic assault for months and months, along with the permanent change to her body from forcing her to endure those after-effects of the rape for months and months, even if she objects to all of this?

Just so we're clear on what you think it's okay to force little girls to do.

IMO, it's hard to imagine something more horrible and monstrously evil than forcing a traumatized little girl to endure body-changing and extremely painful after-effects of a rape, for months and months, along with permanent changes to her body, if she doesn't want this, when all of this could be prevented with a relatively simple and safe procedure.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 11:13 AM.
  #252  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:18 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
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.
Fascinating to me that this was made in response to an imagined conversation that really dealt with actual aspects of the bill (child support, tax deductions, etc) and this is- well, it's a characterization that opponents of the bill bathe in blood, watch abortion sonograms to achieve arousal, and travel to Thailand to have sex with children.

Last edited by raventhief; 05-10-2019 at 11:19 AM.
  #253  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:54 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Fascinating to me that this was made in response to an imagined conversation that really dealt with actual aspects of the bill (child support, tax deductions, etc) and this is- well, it's a characterization that opponents of the bill bathe in blood, watch abortion sonograms to achieve arousal, and travel to Thailand to have sex with children.
Or without them. The original text is ambiguous.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #254  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:55 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is the law that Georgia passed. Which portion(s) of that bill will result in women "almost certainly" being jailed for miscarriages? Please cite a line number or section.

I'll help you get started: "miscarriage" is used precisely once in the bill, on line 108.
The part of the bill that makes it an offense to have an abortion. You understand that only probable cause is required to jail people suspected of an offense, yes?
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #255  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
The part of the bill that makes it an offense to have an abortion. You understand that only probable cause is required to jail people suspected of an offense, yes?
I don't think you understand what this bill does and does not do. Which part, specifically, are you referring to. Please reference a line number or section.
  #256  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:27 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
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.
This is how it is used in common language. I have two children, neither was ever called a fetus before birth by anyone. The obstetrician, the nurses, friends, grandparents, everyone always called them babies.
No one ever has ever said "come feel , the fetus is kickin" or "have you thought of a name for the fetus"
I have known plenty of pregnant women and none have ever called their developing child anything other than a baby.


As pointed out in the post above yours the whole question is what is killed during an abortion. What is an unborn baby? It is definitively alive and human. At some point between conception and its first breath it goes from being potential life to a human life.

Placing the time of personhood at the time of birth makes no sense. A 40 week old baby that is hours away from delivery is more developed than a 25 week old baby that has been delivered prematurely. A baby is the exact same being five minutes before delivery as five minutes after.

Any fixed time is necessarily arbitrary. However that does not mean lines can not be drawn or that they must be drawn. Drawing the line too late risks letting babies be killed, drawing the line too early means burdening mothers. The humane thing to do is to draw the line early because otherwise means killing babies. Somewhere between 6-9 weeks is where most countries do it and that seems reasonable to me.
  #257  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:33 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Just so we're clear, you think it's appropriate for the government to use force to ensure that a young girl feels, physically (and emotionally, of course) the after-effects of a traumatic assault for months and months, along with the permanent change to her body from forcing her to endure those after-effects of the rape for months and months, even if she objects to all of this?

Just so we're clear on what you think it's okay to force little girls to do.

IMO, it's hard to imagine something more horrible and monstrously evil than forcing a traumatized little girl to endure body-changing and extremely painful after-effects of a rape, for months and months, along with permanent changes to her body, if she doesn't want this, when all of this could be prevented with a relatively simple and safe procedure.
I think that rape usually causes a young girl to feel physically and emotionally effects of a traumatic assault for months and even years afterwards regardless of whether she got pregnant or not.

I think it is more horrible and monstrously evil to kill a baby in cold blood than it is to force a girl to carry a baby to term. I know a woman who was conceived in a rape and she is one of the nicest and sweetest people I have ever met. I can think of no reason that she deserved to be killed as a baby because her father did a horrible thing.
  #258  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:34 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
This is how it is used in common language. I have two children, neither was ever called a fetus before birth by anyone. The obstetrician, the nurses, friends, grandparents, everyone always called them babies.
No one ever has ever said "come feel , the fetus is kickin" or "have you thought of a name for the fetus"
I have known plenty of pregnant women and none have ever called their developing child anything other than a baby.


As pointed out in the post above yours the whole question is what is killed during an abortion. What is an unborn baby? It is definitively alive and human. At some point between conception and its first breath it goes from being potential life to a human life.

Placing the time of personhood at the time of birth makes no sense. A 40 week old baby that is hours away from delivery is more developed than a 25 week old baby that has been delivered prematurely. A baby is the exact same being five minutes before delivery as five minutes after.

Any fixed time is necessarily arbitrary. However that does not mean lines can not be drawn or that they must be drawn. Drawing the line too late risks letting babies be killed, drawing the line too early means burdening mothers. The humane thing to do is to draw the line early because otherwise means killing babies. Somewhere between 6-9 weeks is where most countries do it and that seems reasonable to me.
I'm a big fan of looking for a conscious mind, myself. Identifying that from the outside would be tricky, but falling back on brain activity seems reasonable.

Tying it to heartbeat in the absence of brain activity (or just doing like the law says and calling anything in there a natural person) tells me that the interest here isn't in preserving a person - it's in punishing one. The woman.
  #259  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:40 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Somewhere between 6-9 weeks is where most countries do it and that seems reasonable to me.
I'll need a cite for that one, because this Pew Forum report seems to disagree with you.
  #260  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
I think that rape usually causes a young girl to feel physically and emotionally effects of a traumatic assault for months and even years afterwards regardless of whether she got pregnant or not.
So then you're fine with forcefully adding to this the pain, and permanent change to her body, of pregnancy and childbirth, against her wishes? Even though it's very easy to avoid this?

I'm not fine with this. I think it's wrong to force little girls to endure such pain and permanent damage to their bodies against their wishes.

Quote:
I think it is more horrible and monstrously evil to kill a baby in cold blood than it is to force a girl to carry a baby to term. I know a woman who was conceived in a rape and she is one of the nicest and sweetest people I have ever met. I can think of no reason that she deserved to be killed as a baby because her father did a horrible thing.
Was her mother forced against her will to carry the child to term, or did she do it voluntarily?

Apparently you can think of a reason why a young girl who did nothing wrong should be forced, against her will, to endure months of pain capped by terrible agony, along with permanent changes to her body.

I can't think of such a reason. The possibility of this is so alien to me, morally speaking, that I can't imagine it. That's probably one of the major differences in our outlook on life and politics. Even if killing a clump of cells with no conscious ability to feel pain is wrong (and I'm not convinced of this), it's certainly much less wrong than forcing little girls to feel months of pain and hours of terrible agony, along with permanent damage to their body, against their will. IMO, any moral system that reverses this is as reprehensible as slavery.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 01:44 PM.
  #261  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:46 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Somewhere between 6-9 weeks is where most countries do it and that seems reasonable to me.
Hmm. I don't think that's true, Puddleglum, unless you're taking an odd sample.

Most of the EU places limits at the first trimester - roughly weeks 12-13 - with significant exceptions making it longers. Even Ireland - which only made it legal in 2018 - goes out to 12 weeks.

To get that average number down to 6-9 weeks requires including the middle east and parts of Africa or Latin America where it's mostly just banned completely. I'd argue they shouldn't included in a sample of what time limits are placed on abortion when the thing itself isn't legal.
  #262  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:08 PM
Jeep's Phoenix's Avatar
Jeep's Phoenix is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,625
I find it very hard to reconcile the phrase "pro-life" with the idea that forcing a child (such as the previously mentioned 11-year-old from Ohio) to endure a life-threatening pregnancy is acceptable. The potential death of the already living child is preferable to termination?

And despite its accepted casual usage in discussing one's pregnancy, the way the word "baby" is thrown around in anti-choice discussions is pure emotional manipulation; it ascribes a level of violence to a medical procedure.
  #263  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:11 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Any fixed time is necessarily arbitrary. However that does not mean lines can not be drawn or that they must be drawn. Drawing the line too late risks letting babies be killed, drawing the line too early means burdening mothers. The humane thing to do is to draw the line early because otherwise means killing babies. Somewhere between 6-9 weeks is where most countries do it and that seems reasonable to me.
Arbitrary indeed. Yet the insistence on drawing lines meant for all (or at least all within a given state boundary) is seen as a necessary societal good whereby our neighbor to the north is quite content in relegating the decision to the mother and her physician. Is there no place in your mind or code of morality for that as a policy?
  #264  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,097
I get that it's a life - I've always believed that a fetus is a living human in one sense. But up to a certain point, it's a life that uses the body of another person. So yes, life is an issue - won't deny that. But allowing natural born persons to have ultimate jurisdiction over their bodies, and how it can be used by other living people or fetuses, is also an issue. What has always been challenging, and practically impossible, is in deciding which right carries more weight: the right of a fetus to live, or the right of a natural born person to decide she doesn't want to continue being used to help bring a fetus into the world.
  #265  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:58 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
This is how it is used in common language. I have two children, neither was ever called a fetus before birth by anyone. The obstetrician, the nurses, friends, grandparents, everyone always called them babies.
No one ever has ever said "come feel , the fetus is kickin" or "have you thought of a name for the fetus"
I have known plenty of pregnant women and none have ever called their developing child anything other than a baby.
This is called 'argument from ignorance', i.e. if I haven't heard of it, it can't be true.

But I guarantee that women with unwanted pregnancies don't call it a baby until there is no option but to have it. They don't call it anything.

When my wife was pregnant with twins we called them babies because we very much hoped they would become babies. Not before 3 months, because we had lost fetuses earlier than that and couldn't afford to get emotionally attached again. Not because they were actually infants, but because we were already looking forward to them being infants. But not everybody feels that way about their pregnancy, and we shouldn't presume how they should feel or speak about it.

An unborn fetus is only a baby if the mother wants it to be the baby. That ought to be the final word but of course men won't let it be.
  #266  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:11 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
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
I don't think you understand how to parody. And let me add that the Georgia law specifically allows the zygote/embryo fetus to be claimed as a deduction on the STATE tax return, which you know if you'd bothered to read the law or this thread in its entirety.
  #267  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:13 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I don't think you understand how to parody. And let me add that the Georgia law specifically allows the zygote/embryo fetus to be claimed as a deduction on the STATE tax return, which you know if you'd bothered to read the law or this thread in its entirety.
Well, that's a back-assward way to financially incentivize bringing fetuses to term.
  #268  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:19 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,506
I keep seeing references to "human life," when it begins, etc. The Georgia law specifically and consistently confers (or affirms, if you're anti-abortion) natural personhood. That's a deliberate distinction, and an important one.

And for those who haven't read the law, the term "natural" is used to distinguish human persons from "artificial" persons, such as corporations.
  #269  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:21 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I keep seeing references to "human life," when it begins, etc. The Georgia law specifically and consistently confers (or affirms, if you're anti-abortion) natural personhood. That's a deliberate distinction, and an important one.

And for those who haven't read the law, the term "natural" is used to distinguish human persons from "artificial" persons, such as corporations.
Well, yeah, the Georgia law is full of shit and knows it. Those of us talking about fetal development are talking about reality.
  #270  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:18 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shagunathor View Post
But is 2-10% at 22 weeks, which is the age of the pregnancy referred to.
Was it 22 weeks? Is there a link that's not behind a paywall?
  #271  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:52 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Was it 22 weeks? Is there a link that's not behind a paywall?
No, it's 20 weeks. Here's the link to the full text of the law. No paywall. Click on "Open in new window."
  #272  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:27 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,697
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.
Here’s an idea: it’s only a natural person if the woman in whose uterus it’s happening WANTS it to be a natural person. How ‘bout that?

ETA: does the state of Georgia want these natural persons counted in the 2020 census?

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 05-11-2019 at 03:30 AM.
  #273  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:58 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum
Any fixed time is necessarily arbitrary. However that does not mean lines can not be drawn or that they must be drawn. Drawing the line too late risks letting babies be killed, drawing the line too early means burdening mothers. The humane thing to do is to draw the line early because otherwise means killing babies. Somewhere between 6-9 weeks is where most countries do it and that seems reasonable to me.
Respectfully, I dont think you really believe that. You may think you believe it, but Id bet that if you had to choose between saving one 10 year old child and two viable fetuses, youd choose the child.
  #274  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:08 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
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?
I think the purpose of defining fetuses/unborn children to be natural persons is clear: it is an anti-abortion bill and this definition has been pushed by the pro-life crowd and cynically one could say it is a bone to throw at them, or that the people of the State of Georgia honestly believe that life begins at conception and unborn children should be considered persons.

I am pro-life, but I disagree with defining unborn children as legal persons because of the possible unintended consequences of lawyers becoming creative with their pleadings and forcing courts to confront difficult questions. Hopefully the courts will do their job well and consider unborn children as natural persons considering the law as a whole.

Yes, historically under Anglo-American common law, it is not legal to kill a person, so the 6 week limit seems contradictory, along with the 20 week limit for rape and incest. But, again, nothing compels a state to continue to follow the common law. See for example, same sex marriage. Opposite sex couples were a requirement in the common law for hundreds of years, but people in many state changed that. That was not said to be invalid (at least when voted upon).

And also, yes, see the drinking, smoking, and drug use while pregnant could have some adverse legal consequences depending on how the courts look at it. If you let your 4 year old drink a fifth of whiskey, you would certainly be charged, not simply with furnishing alcohol to a minor, but with child abuse or neglect. Why, then, would it be different if a pregnant woman drank heavily and thereby "abused" the child?

In my state, the appropriate agency would be responsible for taking the 4 year old on an emergency basis. But how would the agency take an unborn child? What about the rest of the body of law regarding abused children? Should the fetus be "placed" with relatives?

But a judge could look at the law and say hell no. As a woman would be privileged to kill an unborn child under certain circumstances and would not be punished with murder for killing a child outside these circumstances, it would be an absurdity to apply child abuse laws to children in utero as these laws were not drafted with this intent or purpose in mind and could not be enforced in any meaningful way.

However, these types of unintended consequences are not unique to abortion laws and the law can be revised if outrageous things happen or if some prosecutors go crazy with them.
  #275  
Old 05-11-2019, 05:53 AM
Grey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 6,698
You people elect your DAs. The idea that laws like these wont be turned into election stunts is the height naivete.
__________________
"When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it." : Bernard Bailey
  #276  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:32 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think the purpose of defining fetuses/unborn children to be natural persons is clear: it is an anti-abortion bill and this definition has been pushed by the pro-life crowd and cynically one could say it is a bone to throw at them, or that the people of the State of Georgia honestly believe that life begins at conception and unborn children should be considered persons....
Thanks for the complete answer! I cut it short just to save space.

It's true that laws have unintended consequences, but this law may be raising that likelihood significantly (with the personhood definition) because of what amounts to a meaningless sop to supporters. From your post, I think you would agree with this, right? I think it's unusual for a law to include such features, just to override the consequences.

I think the other part of it, assuming it's really as toothless in the law as you say, is to get the Supreme Court to agree that fetuses are natural persons with 14th amendment rights. To me, that's one way to get abortion banned nationwide, overriding any state laws to the contrary for equal treatment or due process reasons. (I remain not a lawyer)
  #277  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:57 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Despite the oh-so-authoritative nature of your first-thing-I-Googled methodology, the state of Georgia actually provides definitions for these sort of things. Let's see if you can match up which one describes the case asahi brought up:
Which post are you referring to, HD? I recall linking to a story about an Iowa woman who fell down stairs and was charged with attempted feticide. I might have included another link/example but can't recall it at the moment.
  #278  
Old 05-11-2019, 07:33 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Thanks for the complete answer! I cut it short just to save space.

It's true that laws have unintended consequences, but this law may be raising that likelihood significantly (with the personhood definition) because of what amounts to a meaningless sop to supporters. From your post, I think you would agree with this, right? I think it's unusual for a law to include such features, just to override the consequences.

I think the other part of it, assuming it's really as toothless in the law as you say, is to get the Supreme Court to agree that fetuses are natural persons with 14th amendment rights. To me, that's one way to get abortion banned nationwide, overriding any state laws to the contrary for equal treatment or due process reasons. (I remain not a lawyer)
I tend to believe that it is a bone to supporters and a poorly thought out one at that. This, the 14th amendment "persons" applied to unborn children is poor as a matter of federal constitutional law. I see a 9-0 against that idea at the Supreme Court.

However, Georgia is free to define "persons" as it pleases. Now, Georgia has its own due process clause in the state constitution:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragraph I, Georgia Constitution
Life, liberty, and property. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.
So, if you are a Georgia judge, and the father of an unborn child, mother at 5 weeks of pregnancy, petitions a Georgia court for an injunction prohibiting her from getting an abortion on behalf of the unborn child's right to life, what is to be done? What process is "due" under this new Georgia law to an unborn child who is legally a person?

Isn't the State, by permitting this abortion under the new statute depriving the child of a right to life without due process? Whatever process is due, there is no process, so the law seems to violate the Georgia Constitution.

But the judge is constrained by Roe and Casey and must give the woman a chance to have an abortion without imposing an "undue burden." But like Scalia said, what type of burden is "due" to her?!?

And what if Roe and Casey are overturned? There is a woman who is in danger of losing her life if she continues her pregnancy: an abortion exception that has been in every state law, even pre-Roe. There is nothing in the law that says that the unborn child is less of a person than the woman. What if you have a scenario (and imagine how quickly this hearing would have to be held) where every medical professional is in agreement that we either have the abortion and the unborn child, a person, dies, or the mother, a person, dies?

You have a guardian ad litem arguing on behalf of the unborn child, doing his or her ethical duty on behalf of his client saying that the child should live. The mother's lawyer argues that she should live. How does a judge rule going by the law? Would the federal definition of persons trump Georgia law? Probably.

I think under that analysis, the rape and incest exception would have to fail. If we balance interests, the unborn child's right to life would have to trump emotional trauma suffered by the mother (again, simply going by the Georgia law), and even if we used the federal definition of persons, it is still not clear in a post Roe world that a person's interest in not carrying a rapist's child overrides a state law definition of a person who has a right to life.

And some of the other arguments that may seem frivolous on their face are not. If a person 20 years and 3 months old attempts to buy beer, could he not sue and say he was old enough? Yes, the law says "no person under 21 years of age" but that law was passed when age began at live birth. Now that personhood is at conception, is it that much of a stretch to argue it?

Would private companies be allowed to specify that "age" in their contracts mean from birth? Usually companies can contract whatever they want, but would Georgia public policy forbid not counting in utero time? Probably not. But who knows?

If an unborn child is miscarried, do state laws requiring administration of estates mean that an administrator is appointed and paperwork must be filed to distribute the estate? Is the unborn child entitled to inherit? Can it be adopted in utero? In laws requiring hotels to keep a guest registry, must it count the unborn child as a guest at the hotel? If I fill out a form at the hotel and it asks how many adults and how many children, and I don't list the child that my pregnant wife is carrying, did I commit a fraud? Could the hotel, if it found out, add an extra charge to my bill?

In short, I don't see the horrors of murder and conspiracy punishments from the performance of abortions themselves, because they are directly covered by the law. But other consequences of the law would have to be litigated, and a solution would be had eventually after the lawyers get paid, but this needless concept of personhood for the unborn could be stripped from the law and the state could still enact abortion policy.
  #279  
Old 05-11-2019, 08:54 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,643
What if a lesbian gets pregnant by rape? Should she be forced to have the baby and then forced to give it up because some people believe gay parenting is child abuse. Amazingly, these same people who say "A child needs a mother and a father" support forcing single women to have babies.

I wish every women considering abortion would have the baby and give it to a same-sex couple. That would certainly make some of the anti-aborts heads spin.
  #280  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:48 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Wait, are you still claiming that women in Georgia are going to be prosecuted for miscarriages? I thought we dispensed with that nonsense already.
We did? When? I missed it.
__________________
"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
  #281  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:52 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Which post are you referring to, HD? I recall linking to a story about an Iowa woman who fell down stairs and was charged with attempted feticide. I might have included another link/example but can't recall it at the moment.
You're right. I mixed up your story and the one cited by HMS Irruncible in the preceding post.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-11-2019 at 01:52 PM.
  #282  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
We did? When? I missed it.
I'm not surprised that you did. I'd invite you to go back and read the thread again.
  #283  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:57 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Isn't the State, by permitting this abortion under the new statute depriving the child of a right to life without due process? Whatever process is due, there is no process, so the law seems to violate the Georgia Constitution.
This whole thing rests on "life" beginning at conception.

Solve that problem and you have your answer.
__________________
"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
  #284  
Old 05-11-2019, 01:59 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not surprised that you did. I'd invite you to go back and read the thread again.
I am sure you can point me to it.
__________________
"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
  #285  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:01 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
What if a lesbian gets pregnant by rape? Should she be forced to have the baby and then forced to give it up because some people believe gay parenting is child abuse. Amazingly, these same people who say "A child needs a mother and a father" support forcing single women to have babies.

I wish every women considering abortion would have the baby and give it to a same-sex couple. That would certainly make some of the anti-aborts heads spin.
What about this law makes gay adoption any more or less good or bad or will increase or decrease praise or criticism of gays adopting children?
  #286  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:05 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What about this law makes gay adoption any more or less good or bad or will increase or decrease praise or criticism of gays adopting children?
The new Georgia law has zero to do with adoption.

It may well affect adoption though. Is Georgia cool with same sex couples adopting? (really asking...I do not know)
__________________
"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
  #287  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:32 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The new Georgia law has zero to do with adoption.

It may well affect adoption though. Is Georgia cool with same sex couples adopting? (really asking...I do not know)
That's my point: the law has nothing to do with adoption so I'm not sure why it was brought up. AFAIK, every state allows gay adoption and after Obergefell, they all probably must allow it.
  #288  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:47 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's my point: the law has nothing to do with adoption so I'm not sure why it was brought up. AFAIK, every state allows gay adoption and after Obergefell, they all probably must allow it.
Even if adoption was 100% certain at the end you are still asking someone to carry something for nine months with all the medical uncertainties and even life threatening issue that entails.
__________________
"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
  #289  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:05 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Even if adoption was 100% certain at the end you are still asking someone to carry something for nine months with all the medical uncertainties and even life threatening issue that entails.
I don't disagree, but what does that have to do with the Georgia law and whether gay people can adopt?
  #290  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:19 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't disagree, but what does that have to do with the Georgia law and whether gay people can adopt?
What it has to do with the Georgia law is forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy for nine months.

It has nothing to do with adoption. Why are you even asking? Adoption has nothing to do with this thread.
__________________
"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; 05-11-2019 at 04:19 PM.
  #291  
Old 05-11-2019, 05:51 PM
elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,346
A nation that so profoundly respects personal body autonomy as to not intervene if Doug won’t give a kidney to Bob, without which he will die, should respect a women’s body autonomy sufficiently to not intervene should she choose to not allow some cells to fully form into a person. The only reason not to is straight up misogyny in my mind.

Taking a life and denying the necessities of life to someone, are both heinous crimes under the law. If body autonomy exempts one from interference from the state it should also exempt the other. If, however there is a different standard of body autonomy for women that’s misogyny .

Last edited by elbows; 05-11-2019 at 05:51 PM.
  #292  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:49 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
What it has to do with the Georgia law is forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy for nine months.

It has nothing to do with adoption. Why are you even asking? Adoption has nothing to do with this thread.
I was responding to the post that talked about how women should have same sex couples adopt their children.

We've done the abortion debate a million times; I was just chiming in to respond to some of the more outrageous things that the Slate article said that the abortion law would do like punish abortions with the death penalty and other nonsense.
  #293  
Old 05-11-2019, 08:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You're right. I mixed up your story and the one cited by HMS Irruncible in the preceding post.
All good, just making sure I haven't gone senile yet.
  #294  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:57 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,012
Well, I guess adoption is slightly relevant, in the sense that if an abortion ban in Georgia "gifted" that state with, say, 10000 extra babies per year, wouldn't the number of people (or if you prefer, only good hetero white Christian couples) currently seeking to adopt quickly be satisfied? What do you do two or three years from now? Export? Build more orphanages? Maybe the corporations that currently run private prisons could get a piece of this action.
  #295  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:01 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
No, it's 20 weeks. Here's the link to the full text of the law. No paywall. Click on "Open in new window."
I wasn't talking about the law. I was asking about the person that another poster claimed that Georgia tried to prosecute. How many weeks?
  #296  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:40 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
I wasn't talking about the law. I was asking about the person that another poster claimed that Georgia tried to prosecute. How many weeks?
The article said 5 1/2 months. Of course every month has a varying number of days and the article probably rounded, but the woman in question took abortifacients that she acquired illegally off the internet. The child was then born alive and subsequently died.

The born alive part is important. From ye olde English common law that is still applied in the United States, apart from any statute, when a child is "born alive" they are considered a person. And in this case the woman committed a crime which caused that person's death. This is a similar rationale regarding why assaults on pregnant women who cause the death of a fetus "born alive" are prosecuted for murder (others are prosecuted by statute).

We can debate whether the woman should have been prosecuted under this old doctrine, but it was not the result of any crazy Georgia thing, but the decision of a single prosecutor. The same thing could happen in New York or California if a prosecutor decided to do so.

ETA: I've posted this in other threads, but this is a case from West Virginia where a woman who was 37 weeks pregnant injected herself with meth, the baby was born and subsequently died. She was charged with a state law variety of homicide and convicted. The Supreme Court reversed 3-2 holding that the unborn child was not a "child" under state law: http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-cour...16/15-0021.pdf

Last edited by UltraVires; 05-11-2019 at 11:42 PM.
  #297  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:46 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,566
Missed the edit window: The dissenting opinion in that case

http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-cour...1d-loughry.pdf

Both a very good read and show the policy implications and the difficulty in applying the law.
  #298  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:51 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The article said 5 1/2 months. Of course every month has a varying number of days and the article probably rounded, but the woman in question took abortifacients that she acquired illegally off the internet.
Ok, no matter how one counts days or weeks, 5 1/2 months is more than 20 weeks. So more likely than not, the fetus WAS viable.
  #299  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:35 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Ok, no matter how one counts days or weeks, 5 1/2 months is more than 20 weeks. So more likely than not, the fetus WAS viable.
Yes, and it wasn't just a "fetus" at the point that it was born alive, but a full-on "baby" and person.
  #300  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:42 PM
Shagunathor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Ok, no matter how one counts days or weeks, 5 1/2 months is more than 20 weeks. So more likely than not, the fetus WAS viable.
5 1/2 months is 22 weeks. As stated above, viability stats at that age are 2-15%, according to the NIH. In what world is 15% more likely than not?

Last edited by Shagunathor; 05-12-2019 at 10:43 PM.
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 06:17 PM.

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