Thank you for acknowledging that no Democrats would shade the truth or lie in support of their pet ideas. That makes them different than Republicans. 
Yes, I will save this admission and quote it in the future.
“It shouldn’t take that much thought to arrive at the conclusion that if parental consent is the problem, then the parental consent law should be changed (or at least complained about)”
I suspect the argument would more be that neither law should be in place but that the presence of one further compounds the effect of the other.
Ie criminalising a 17 year old doing this isnt really the answer and that making it so they cant get an abortion without parental consent only makes the scenario more likely.
Otara
I overlooked this on the first go around. I find it silly that you think we’re the ones with backward, segregation-era prejudiced views. You’re the one that wants to pretend that a living organism with its own DNA, own brain, own skin, own independent circulatory system, own response to stimuli, etc, isn’t a human being. You’re the one using arguments that sound like slave owners - “It’s my property, I can do as I please with it! They’re barely even human anyway!”
And you’re completely right. One side IS driven by malice- the side that wants to abuse a necessary medical operation to shirk responsibility for their actions by killing someone simply because they’ve never laid eyes on the person.
There are about a million insults I’d like to throw your way, but this is still in GD, so I’ll just call you a “blob of flesh” instead.
You mean like, say, a frog? A bug? Do you consider those human too?
And they were evil people, because they were wrong. Blatantly so. I’m not.
Well, in response, some people see it differently. Many people in the world do not consider an eight week old fetus to be a human being full of rights. They consider it a private issue of the mother’s health and none of the government’s business at all. They do not think that the bodies of women are subject to the regulation of the government.
This is so utterly absurd. But then again, it’s Utah. :rolleyes:
Parents certainly coerce their daughters into abortions all the time, quite simply, by stating that the “choice” is to have an abortion or to get out of their house. Forcing a girl to bear a child against her will is equally coercive and an equal deprivation of liberty and bodily autonomy, but who cares, there’s a baaaaybeeeeee at stake. :rolleyes:
So leave her aside, even though the legislature of Utah just acted hastily to kludge together an overly broad piece of law specifically in reaction to her. The question which stands is this: who, exactly, is being protected by this law?
If a specifically abortive procedure or abortifacient medication haven’t been used, then the loss of a pregnancy is a spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage. Even if a woman has been intentionally beaten about her pregnant belly. Intention isn’t induction.
And the language regarding “acts against medical advice” does not indicate that acting against general advice (e.g. don’t smoke crack when pregnant, which a woman with no admitted history of substance abuse would likely never be specifically told by her doctor) is exempted, or if it only applies in scenarios where a recommended procedure is declined, such as in the tragic (and embarrassing to Utah legal authorities) case of Melissa Rowland, which gained national attention several years ago.
No, the argument is that this law is a backdoor effort to enable some legal recognition of “rights” of fetuses that are not compatible with Roe v. Wade.
Because at the end of the day, here’s where the law breaks down. If I want to have someone to beat me, legally, I can. Practitioners of BDSM do it every day. I could have a very skilled person lash me with a bullwhip until I’m a bleeding heap on the floor if I wanted to.
And if I were 20 weeks pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, granted that I have the money and the access, I could.
But this law has said that if I were 20 weeks pregnant and had someone to beat me (or feed me an abortifacient herbal concoction or throw me down a flight of stairs) and a miscarriage results, I’ve now committed homicide. And it doesn’t matter if I’ve done it because I can’t afford an abortion, or the law won’t let me get one because I’m only 17, or because my domestic partner/parents/community won’t let me get one, or because I’m afraid of medical procedures.
If it’s legal for me to be savagely beaten when I’m not pregnant, and it would be legal for me to get an abortion at the point of pregnancy where I am, then clearly the point of telling me that I can’t be beaten to end my pregnancy, if that’s the stupid path I choose, is not to protect me.
If it’s OK or not isn’t the point. And this law makes it illegal to do anything non-medical to end an abortion at any point in the pregnancy. Forget 7 months. It’s illegal at 7 hours.
None. It’s a red herring. The point is, any woman who undergoes a trauma and subsequently miscarries could be suspected, investigated and arrested, whether she’s charged or not – like the Iowa woman who was arrested after falling down the stairs because the nurse lied about the dates on the pregnancy. She was ultimately not charged, but she spent two days in jail while authorities decided if falling down a flight of stairs and being ambivalent about a pregnancy were crimes.
And as I mentioned above, the wording of the law is sufficiently vague that this could be used to jail women whose addiction issues cause them to lose a pregnancy.
The entire law is nothing but a promotion of the agenda of the anti-abortion crowd. Anything that can be used to establish some rights of a fetus is the kind of entry that they specifically look for and use in the hopes of creating grounds for a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. This isn’t just patently obvious, this is right out of the playbook of every anti-abortion organization in the country. That’s why they lobby their allied legislators to come up with things like this, and the proposed law in South Carolina to prohibit any insurer doing business in the state from covering elective abortions, and the various and sundry “personhood” amendments that they have tried to pass in numerous states and are trying to get on the ballots everywhere. (Because just one is enough to end up back in front of the SCOTUS. And right now, there’s no guarantee that if they get that, they won’t win.)
If you offer up this quote for the purpose of suggesting its literal truth, without revealing the context from which it came…
… well, you’d be proving my actual point quite nicely, wouldn’t you? 
People believe a lot of things that are incorrect. As I stated earlier, my views on abortion wouldn’t fundamentally change if I did believe a fetus was a person. But I don’t.
I’d be willing to consider a ban on third trimester abortions (with obvious exceptions for mother’s health/fetal survivability) in exchange for fully funded compulsory sex education in schools, free contraception, a requirement for licensed pharmacists to fill prescriptions (and an end to bloody stupid laws granting people the right to refuse legitimate requests from their pharmacist employers and avoid discipline based on ‘conscience’) and federally funded abortions available in the first two trimesters. And maybe some other stuff I can’t think of right now. I don’t want a pony, though.
So. are you saying that without those things, you favor legalized, elective abortions at 7 months? 8 months? 9 months?
I wouldn’t say I would favor them as such. But legally allowing them, probably. It’s something I go back and forth on.
Yes, and glad that you are confirming your statement and not backing away from it! “No Democrats would shade the truth or lie in support of their pet ideas.” Gotta make that my sig line as soon as I figure out how. With proper attribution, of course. Wouldn’t want to give a misimpression.
Uhh, that would be your point that Democrats don’t shade the truth or lie in support of their pet ideas, right? 
Don’t worry, Bricker, I’m just messin’ with ya.
How about the right to demand that the fetus be taken either by induced labor or by C-section, at no risk of liability to the pregnant woman, and treated as though it had been given up in accordance with infant safe haven laws?
That’s one I have gone both ways on. If I was coming at this from a straight property rights angle, then I would have to say yes. But I’m not, so I just am not sure on it. There also is the factor of risk to the pregnant woman that needs to be included in it.
People want you to prove things because you border on hysteria, treat true crime novels as scientific studies, and have worse cites than Jack Chick.
Sounds good to me
I’ve taken care of babies born at 7 and 8 months gestational age, so it’s not
That’s probably a pretty good description of how she felt when she paid someone to beat her up so badly she’d miscarry.
Wow, if I was a woman living in Utah, I’d be scared shitless of getting pregnant.