If you were holding an infant in your arms, and, having the right to control one’s own body of paramount importance, decided you didn’t want to continue to support the infant’s weight with your arms, using your body’s resources (calories) and sustaining wear on tear on joints and muscles, do you think you should be free to just drop them, and let the cards fall where they may as it were? Or could other parties interested in the welfare of the infant (such as the state) intercede and obligate you to set the infant down gently, in a safe location, rather than letting them tumble the four or so feet onto an unknown surface and sustaining whatever harm comes of that?
Okay. That helps me understand where you are coming from a little. Are you saying that you think that the Georgia law’s cutoff time is equivalent to when the fetus is a person? Or is it at another point?
This thread isn’t about that. If you care to start a “Should you drop babies?” thread though, I would love to participate.
My personal belief is that life begins at conception. My understanding about the “when does it become a person?” debate is that we’re really trying to decide, as a society, when and to what degree we bestow that life with legal rights. My preference would generally be to see it happen earlier in the pregnancy than usually happens today, but I am not particularly wedded to the idea that it must be at the point when our current medical instrumentation is capable of measuring the heartbeat (~6 weeks).
Sure, that’s fair. I was just responding to another poster and wanted to understand how absolute he was in his “belief that the right to control one’s own body is paramount”, but I can understand why he might not want to respond to my query and why you’d be eager to steer the conversation away from that line of inquiry.
I have the paramount right to control my fist - it’s part of my body. Therefore my right to control my fist is paramount, and I can use it to punch children.
Regards,
Shodan
Were you under the impression you were being helpful at some stage?
Ah, an arbitrary distinction. Easy to make when it’s not your body undergoing the stress.
Oh, I’m just sussing out some basic inconsistencies in Georgia law and those who defend it.
The right to bodily autonomy doesn’t allow one to harm anyone else unless they are violating your right to bodily autonomy. It’s quite simple. You can’t punch someone unless they are harming you (or about to), you can put a baby down but you can’t harm it (unless it’s inside your body against your will), etc. It’s not a hard concept to understand, even if many disagree.
Do you agree with removing the exclusions of rape and incest from the law as its written?
Nice leap there from control of your own body to control of someone else’s.
Of course, if the child in question is inside your body at the time, punch away. It’s too bad for the child, but punchability is location- and context-dependent. Ignoring that is foolish.
I think we agree that an infant in your arms, if one changes his mind about wanting to hold that infant, is now violating one’s bodily autonomy (but feel free to chime in if I’ve misunderstood you). Why then, is one obligated to “put it down”, expending the extra calories to bend over and place it gently on the ground, risking a strained back or hip or knee injury, expending those extra calories involved in the effort, etc.? Why can’t one just drop the baby? Surely you agree that’s the most expeditious route to restoring one’s bodily autonomy, right?
I mean, do women want the police/court determining whether or not the fetus was going to cause great bodily injury or death to the woman? Or would they rather have a licensed physician make the call?
Somehow I’m less than surprised that you have no actual understanding of bodily autonomy for women. No, you don’t get it at all, and I have no interest in playing such a stupid game with you.
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.
Now* that *is how you do laughable hyperbole.
Heck, I’m of the opinion that even if pregnancy was no more dangerous than a hangnail, it should still be the woman’s choice whether or not to continue. The fact that pregnancy can be quite stressful, injurious or even lethal is useful mainly for trying to find out if the pro-lifer is capable of empathy, i.e. can they picture themselves in such a predicament and would they want a remedy if one existed. Ditka expressed empathy for elders who are being abused, wives who are being beaten, children who are being abused and fetuses who are being aborted, but not women with an unwanted pregnancy, which strikes me personally as a vaguely odd omission, but of course mileage varies.
Intent to do harm and imminent harm do not mean the same thing.
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I’d still support the law if lines 121-125 (and the reference on line 277) were removed?
I think he is confusing the Georgia bill with the Alabama bill. BTW, do you support the Alabama bill as it is now written, which takes out the rape and incest exclusions?
I haven’t read it and don’t know. Besides, “This thread isn’t about that. If you care to start a “[DEL]Should you drop babies?[/DEL] [What do you think of the Alabama abortion bill?]” thread though, I would love to participate.” 
Okay, a little needling aside, I genuinely don’t have a firm position on cases of rape / incest. The debate is generally so far from the point where it’s an issue that I haven’t bothered to really refine / nail down my feelings on the subject, but I can generally see the competing interests between the innocent life of an unborn child, and the trauma a rape victim would have to endure by carrying her rapist’s baby to term. I hope that serves as an explanation of my feelings on the matter (fuzzy as they are) without further sidetracking the thread into an area that’s not at issue with the Georgia bill.