You’re right. I mixed up your story and the one cited by HMS Irruncible in the preceding post.
I’m not surprised that you did. I’d invite you to go back and read the thread again.
This whole thing rests on “life” beginning at conception.
Solve that problem and you have your answer.
I am sure you can point me to it.
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)
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 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.
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 .
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.
All good, just making sure I haven’t gone senile yet.
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.
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-court/docs/spring2016/15-0021.pdf
Missed the edit window: The dissenting opinion in that case
http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/docs/spring2016/15-0021d-loughry.pdf
Both a very good read and show the policy implications and the difficulty in applying the law.
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.
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?