America transitions into Gilead

[ponderingturtle]

Shocking as it is to you or me, it's what the vast majority of people in Alabama want. It's not as if the bill squeaked through, it was 25-6 in the Senate and 74-3 in the House.

It's a feature of a federal system, states have significant latitude and it's the reason why California can continue to have legal abortion even if the majority of states ban it.

The same goes for teaching creationism, banning sex education and making contraception difficult to get hold of - it's what the overwhelming majority of people in that state want. I don't understand it, but that's not important.

Or good old favorites like Jim Crow, banning Miscegenation and so forth. Really the bill of rights shouldn't apply to the states at all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I hope there is more to the story than the headline.

Yes and no. The judge ordered it with out any information at all. Of course he didn't ask for it. It was the state going after him for child support because the child was receiving state aid that caused the whole thing.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/10/09/was-rapist-given-custody-of-child/

 

[ponderingturtle]

If she deliberately takes it for the purpose of inducing a miscarriage, after the point of fetal heartbeat,

Well formed yoke sack really. But that medical specificity doesn't translate well into emotionally manipulating voters, like the political term "partial birth abortion"

 

[The Don]

Or good old favorites like Jim Crow, banning Miscegenation and so forth. Really the bill of rights shouldn't apply to the states at all.

Yes, it's a matter of establishing the boundary between human rights so basic from a national perspective that states cannot rule against them and those things which can be set on a state by state basis. Fortunately this is a movable feast and the liberal policies of the last 70 years or so have enshrined so many rights at a national basis.

The right for women to choose currently fits in that first category but that same flexibility to change which has delivered so many enhancements to human rights may be set to deliver change in the other direction. If that's the will of the majority of people in the majority of states then it's only right and proper.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, it's a matter of establishing the boundary between human rights so basic from a national perspective that states cannot rule against them and those things which can be set on a state by state basis. Fortunately this is a movable feast and the liberal policies of the last 70 years or so have enshrined so many rights at a national basis.

But yet you reject them as seen by your disagreement with the first amendment applying to states with the teaching of creationism.

The right for women to choose currently fits in that first category but that same flexibility to change which has delivered so many enhancements to human rights may be set to deliver change in the other direction. If that's the will of the majority of people in the majority of states then it's only right and proper.

And the courts were clearly wrong to make those rulings. It should have been the states choosing to end jim crow and allow miscegenation. At least if you are consistent You are removing the 14th amendment.

 

[The Don]

But yet you reject them as seen by your disagreement with the first amendment applying to states with the teaching of creationism.

Regarding the teaching of creationism, I suppose it depends on which end of the telescope you're looking through.

Those people who wish to limit the teaching of creationism to religious instruction and not science probably view states who wish it to be taught alongside, or even instead of evolution as the government getting involved and thus breaking the first amendment.

Those who have the opposite view probably view the government telling them that they cannot teach creationism alongside, or even instead of evolution as the government getting involved and thus breaking the first amendment.

And the courts were clearly wrong to make those rulings. It should have been the states choosing to end jim crow and allow miscegenation. At least if you are consistent You are removing the 14th amendment.

I'm not sure that there's much demand for a repeal of the 14th amendment but it wouldn't shock me to find that there are many, many states where what I as a Western European would consider basic human rights are highly controversial - the right for a woman to choose is one of them.

Fundamental human rights are only fundamental if a country elects to uphold them. The US would come under considerable international criticism if it were to ban abortion in some states, make gay marriage illegal in some states or repeal swathes of civil rights legislation.

Then again, pulling out of the Paris Climate Change agreement and the Iranian nuclear deal were controversial and the US was happy to do it.

 

[zooterkin]

Your italicized bit is interesting. Did any Alabama legislators make an argument to that effect? (And especially did anyone say that rape isn't a problem?)

I suspect Travis is referring to a different part of the bill (or a different bill, I'm not sure exactly how the process works), where if a woman brings an allegation of rape, but the accused is found not guilty, the accuser is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
https://pluralist.com/alabama-bill-criminalize-making-false-rape-allegations/

 

[AnonyMoose]

If this passes into law, every time a female has sexual intercourse in the state of Alabama, she will be literally putting her life/freedom on the line.

It's the 18th century all over again, ladies.... time to rethink whether or not that boyfriend or husband of yours is worth risking your personal freedom for. Up to 99 fricken years for terminating the unwanted zygote growing in your womb...?

And if you were the victim of a horrific rape? Oh well. Too bad, so sad. *shrug*



If this passes into law, you'll have only two choices ladies:

- Carry any and all accidental pregnancies to full term (the common risks of developing diabetes, hypo/hyper thyroidism, new allergies, iron deficiencies, pernicious anemia, high blood pressure, etc etc be damned)

OR

- Risk your life in the bathtub with a coathanger




Chattel indeed.

 

[phiwum]

Shocking as it is to you or me, it's what the vast majority of people in Alabama want. It's not as if the bill squeaked through, it was 25-6 in the Senate and 74-3 in the House.

It's a feature of a federal system, states have significant latitude and it's the reason why California can continue to have legal abortion even if the majority of states ban it.

The same goes for teaching creationism, banning sex education and making contraception difficult to get hold of - it's what the overwhelming majority of people in that state want. I don't understand it, but that's not important.

Of course, the current rulings in the Supreme Court make teaching creationism as fact or outlawing abortion unconstitutional. For the latter, this will be another roll of the dice, but the odds are better for the pro-life camp than they used to be.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If this passes into law, every time a female has sexual intercourse in the state of Alabama, she will be literally putting her life/freedom on the line.

It's the 18th century all over again, ladies.... time to rethink whether or not that boyfriend or husband of yours is worth risking your personal freedom for. Up to 99 fricken years for terminating the unwanted zygote growing in your womb...?

And if you were the victim of a horrific rape? Oh well. Too bad, so sad. *shrug*



If this passes into law, you'll have only two choices ladies:

- Carry any and all accidental pregnancies to full term (the common risks of developing diabetes, hypo/hyper thyroidism, new allergies, iron deficiencies, pernicious anemia, high blood pressure, etc etc be damned)

OR

- Risk your life in the bathtub with a coathanger




Chattel indeed.

I'm not sure what your criticism is. Why are these things issues?

If one thinks abortion is murder, you are making poor arguments for why they shouldn't make murder illegal.

If one thinks abortion is not murder, then your argument doesn't need more than, "don't make things murder when they are not murder."

 

[phiwum]

Your Wapo article says



Stern at Slate has responded to this. I recommend reading the full article. But let me just highlight this provision of the law:



Full legal personhood means that you don't need to rely on this law, you could just just charge a woman with murder under existing laws. It would be the same as strangling a baby in its cradle.

I totally agree that there is some controversy over what the law entails. I'd say that Planned Parenthood is not biased in favor of the Georgia law, so I regard the statements of that group to be pretty reliable.

The quote you posted was misleadlingly excerpted. The whole sentence reads, "Georgia’s law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgia’s penal code which have specific defenses for women, including those who miscarry."

You said that you saw no reason women who miscarry couldn't be prosecuted. Evidently, legal experts believe there's a very good reason, namely that there are specific defenses for women. I do not know the details of those defenses, so I won't say for certain that's an overwhelming reason, but it's a reason.

 

[AnonyMoose]

I'm not sure what your criticism is. Why are these things issues?

If one thinks abortion is murder, you are making poor arguments for why they shouldn't make murder illegal.

If one thinks abortion is not murder, then your argument doesn't need more than, "don't make things murder when they are not murder."

I don't know Bob. Why are these things issues?

This has absolutely nothing to "murder" and everything to do with a woman's biological function and how she wants to handle it. Women have had to make these types of overwhelmingly difficult personal decisions since the dawn of mankind.

Why are outsiders forcing their own personal choices (that big bad murder word) on women they've never met? Who the **** are these people to decide someone else's personal biological/health choices?

The USA needs to decide which century it wants to live in.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't know Bob. Why are these things issues?

This has absolutely nothing to "murder" and everything to do with a woman's biological function and how she wants to handle it. Women have had to make these types of overwhelmingly difficult personal decisions since the dawn of mankind.

Why are outsiders forcing their own personal choices (that big bad murder word) on women they've never met? Who the **** are these people to decide someone else's personal biological/health choices?

The USA needs to decide which century it wants to live in.

If one thinks abortion is murder, then abortion has everything to do with murder. If one doesn't, then it doesn't. They think murder is sufficient reason to limit the choice of people to commit murder. Those who don't think it is murder think that is a stupid idea.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I totally agree that there is some controversy over what the law entails. I'd say that Planned Parenthood is not biased in favor of the Georgia law, so I regard the statements of that group to be pretty reliable.

The quote you posted was misleadlingly excerpted. The whole sentence reads, "Georgia’s law does not unequivocally say that women are exempt, but legal experts point to other areas of Georgia’s penal code which have specific defenses for women, including those who miscarry."

You said that you saw no reason women who miscarry couldn't be prosecuted. Evidently, legal experts believe there's a very good reason, namely that there are specific defenses for women. I do not know the details of those defenses, so I won't say for certain that's an overwhelming reason, but it's a reason.

Ah but having a defense doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted, it just means they have a chance to defend themselves if they are.

 

[Meadmaker]

Full legal personhood means that you don't need to rely on this law, you could just just charge a woman with murder under existing laws. It would be the same as strangling a baby in its cradle.

Except, the law doesn't do that.

At least, that's what all the analyses I have read from lawyers say. On the surface, it might appear that you could be correct, but the lawyers say no.

The Georgia law makes specific changes to specific sections of the code of laws for the state of Georgia. The result of those law changes is that a lot more abortions fall under the illegal abortion law, but it doesn't change specific sections of that code which say that killing a fetus is not murder, and that abortion is not feticide, and that there are no penalties for miscarriage unless the miscarriage is deliberate.

To be fair, I prefer laws that are simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. This one isn't, but the lawyers I have read say that no one is going to be charged with murder.

 

[Lithrael]

It’s not murder like picking up acorns is not logging. But then I already don’t think all instances of killing a full on human are murder either. Anyone who thinks it’s not that complicated has intentionally or unintentionally enshrined suffering IMO.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Why isn't it called "murder" (thereby passing a law to make it illegal) when we snatch an egg out from under a hen (fertilized or not) and crack it open in our frying pan?

Do you think of murder every time you chow down on some scrambled eggs?

Murder assumes the victim to be a self-determining, self-sustaining, living, breathing, already existing, fully developed sentient being.

Using the word "murder" on something that's not all of the above, is what's known as the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.

A fallacy that works remarkable well on the sanctimonious masses, apparently.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why isn't it called "murder" (thereby passing a law to make it illegal) when we snatch an egg out from under a hen (fertilized or not) and crack it open in our frying pan?

Do you think of murder every time you chow down on some scrambled eggs?

Murder assumes the victim to be a self-determining, self-sustaining, living, breathing, already existing, fully developed sentient being.

Using the word "murder" on something that's not all of the above, is what's known as the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.

A fallacy that works remarkable well on the sanctimonious masses, apparently.

How do you prove that is what murder assumes? For many it is based on the assumed presence of a soul.

 

[theprestige]

Why isn't it called "murder" (thereby passing a law to make it illegal) when we snatch an egg out from under a hen (fertilized or not) and crack it open in our frying pan?

Do you think of murder every time you chow down on some scrambled eggs?

Murder assumes the victim to be a self-determining, self-sustaining, living, breathing, already existing, fully developed sentient being.

Using the word "murder" on something that's not all of the above, is what's known as the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.

Apparently, human development continues into the early 20s. Certainly a three month-old human is neither self-determining nor self-sustaining (in addition to not being fully developed).

You seem to be developing an argument in favor of legalizing fourth-trimester abortions.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Apparently, human development continues into the early 20s. Certainly a three month-old human is neither self-determining nor self-sustaining (in addition to not being fully developed).

A three month old human can choose to suck on its own toes (self-determining) because it has toes to suck on. A three month old human breaths on its own from developed lungs (self-sustaining) because it has lungs to breath from. A three month old human has a birth certificate (note the word "birth") declaring it to be a realized human being.

Do you celebrate your conception day? Or your birth day?

You seem to be developing an argument in favor of legalizing fourth-trimester abortions.

You seem to be developing your usual circular semantics argument in favour of your love for pedantry and mental gymnastics.



The bottom line is:

You know damn well the point (and context) of what my post was saying, loud and clear. Don't waste my time trying to twist it into something it's not.