America transitions into Gilead

[Ziggurat]

Yup. It's all about punishing the sluts, one way or another.

That's like saying abortion support is all about killing babies. Well, no, it isn't. There's a fallacy being committed in both directions: assume that your axioms are shared, and then come up with a motive for why people who shared your axioms would choose a different policy. You assume that abortion opponents don't really think a fetus is a person with all the rights that entails, so you come up with an alternative for why someone would want to ban abortion even if they didn't think that.

And likewise, someone claiming abortion advocates want to murder babies is assuming that those abortion advocates consider fetuses to be people. But the axioms are not shared. The axiom that a fetus is a person leads rather directly to abortion opposition, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom. The axiom that a fetus is not a person leads rather directly to abortion support, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom.

There are people in the middle who aren't sure about what axiom to hold regarding fetuses, and they can sometimes be swayed on the basis of how attractive a policy outcome looks to them. But anyone who holds strongly to an axiom is going to have their position follow almost inevitably from that, and you not only won't sway them with an argument that transparently doesn't apply to them, you'll just further polarize the discussion.

 

[Minoosh]

Georgia would punish the women. It's Alabama that doesn't. Kay Ivey talks like she expects the Alabama law to be struck down.

Seems to me some provisions would interfere with interstate commerce.

It would be helpful to have a spreadsheet or something that lays out the data on different measures. Not necessarily the most extreme laws, though that would be interesting too. Things are happening very quickly now.

Y'all wanna get pregnant in the South so you can get a legal abortion, better hurry!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's like saying abortion support is all about killing babies. Well, no, it isn't. There's a fallacy being committed in both directions: assume that your axioms are shared, and then come up with a motive for why people who shared your axioms would choose a different policy. You assume that abortion opponents don't really think a fetus is a person with all the rights that entails, so you come up with an alternative for why someone would want to ban abortion even if they didn't think that.

And likewise, someone claiming abortion advocates want to murder babies is assuming that those abortion advocates consider fetuses to be people. But the axioms are not shared. The axiom that a fetus is a person leads rather directly to abortion opposition, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom. The axiom that a fetus is not a person leads rather directly to abortion support, it's really hard to take any other position if you hold that axiom.

There are people in the middle who aren't sure about what axiom to hold regarding fetuses, and they can sometimes be swayed on the basis of how attractive a policy outcome looks to them. But anyone who holds strongly to an axiom is going to have their position follow almost inevitably from that, and you not only won't sway them with an argument that transparently doesn't apply to them, you'll just further polarize the discussion.

To some extent you have a point, but you are missing what the spoken motivation is for some of these religious fanatics.

They want sex to be risky to force abstinence. It's fine with some people that sex leads to STDs because they believe that motivates abstinence. They believe women should suffer the consequences of sinful (aka out of wedlock) sex.

Look up why people support abstinence only education even when the data shows it is ineffective.

 

[phiwum]

No... I meant my post responding to you just above that one. But nice rant.

Thanks.

I don't know how I overlooked the post you meant.

On the one hand, I agree completely. Sex education and attitudes towards sex in general very plausibly have a direct effect on the number of abortions and the same people pushing for outlawing abortion are decidedly against comprehensive sex education and the easy availability of contraceptives.

But that's not the same thing as saying that legalization causes a decrease in demand. That's saying that the same values that tend to lead to legalized abortion also lead to better sex ed and so on and this in turn leads to fewer abortions. In other words, legalization and decreased demand have a common cause, not that legalization itself causes the lessened demand.

 

[Meadmaker]

So, my wife talked to a friend of hers today, and it seems that there is an "underground railroad" (their term) organizing to help women in Ohio get to Michigan to have an abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Ohio has already passed a strict law, but here in Michigan, the governor is a Democratic woman. Abortion is going to stay legal in Michigan for at least the next four years.

This "underground railroad" is being organized with secret codewords and everything.

Uhhhh…...honey......it's not illegal. It's ok to leave Ohio and go to Michigan, and the Ohio legislature can't make anything illegal that happens in Michigan.

I've been informed that we are going to register as one of the safe houses where Ohio women who need abortions can stay. I mentioned I wasn't really keen on the idea, but very shortly into the conversation, I changed to "Good idea, honey."

The truth is I have no objection at all, and approve of it happening. I just don't think my style of people skills are the sort that you would want around a woman who is under a lot of stress just before, or after, she aborts a pregnancy. I'm more of a "How's it going? Beer's in the fridge" sort of host. However, my wife the psychologist can probably do a much better job.


What I found funny about the whole thing, though, was the whole sense of urgency and overall extreme significance of this effort. There's no reason it has to be underground. We don't need codewords. I know the people she was talking to, though, and they take themselves Very Seriously, so "underground railroad" it is. I guess it pays tribute to our Detroit heritage. Back in the day when this was the quickest way to Canada for escaped slaves from Missouri, Kentucky, and thereabouts, Detroit had a lot of Underground Railroad traffic.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What I found funny about the whole thing, though, was the whole sense of urgency and overall extreme significance of this effort. There's no reason it has to be underground. We don't need codewords. I know the people she was talking to, though, and they take themselves Very Seriously, so "underground railroad" it is. I guess it pays tribute to our Detroit heritage. Back in the day when this was the quickest way to Canada for escaped slaves from Missouri, Kentucky, and thereabouts, Detroit had a lot of Underground Railroad traffic.

given the number of clinic that have been bombed and doctors killed by pro-lifers, I don't think it is irrational to want to have the process of facilitating help for women in these situations a secret.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can anybody put forth a coherent defense of punishing doctors while the person who ordered the hit is held harmless?

If the goal is deterrence (rather than retributive justice), then that actually makes sense. There are going to be fewer doctors performing abortions than women getting abortions, making the target audience you have to deter smaller. And the odds of catching a doctor who performs multiple abortions will be much higher than the odds of catching a woman who only gets one abortion done. In fact, by giving women immunity to prosecution, it's easier to get them to turn witness against the doctor who performed the abortion, and doctors considering performing abortions would know this up front, which also increases deterrence. The odds of getting caught are usually a bigger factor in deterrence than the severity of the punishment, and the odds of getting caught will probably be low for any one woman if they face criminal prosecution. So as a simple practical matter, it makes sense to focus on the smaller group. Doctors act as a choke point for abortion services. Expanding prosecution to women adds a lot more work for not much more deterrent effect.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is no way to convict a doctor without also convicting the one he is performing on: if abortion is murder, then asking someone to do it is solicitation to commit murder.
People who wrote the law clearly didn't care about how the law works.

 

[Bob001]

.....
This "underground railroad" is being organized with secret codewords and everything.

Uhhhh…...honey......it's not illegal. It's ok to leave Ohio and go to Michigan, and the Ohio legislature can't make anything illegal that happens in Michigan.
....

It might not be illegal -- yet -- but there are certainly reasons why a woman might need to hide what she's doing from parents, spouses, partners, etc., not to mention evading the crazies who shoot doctors, blow up clinics, etc.

And don't be so sure that crossing a state line will save you from the long arm of the law:

Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...bortion-subjects-women-to-life-in-prison.html

 

[Lurch]

So, my wife talked to a friend of hers today, and it seems that there is an "underground railroad" (their term) organizing to help women in Ohio get to Michigan to have an abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Ohio has already passed a strict law, but here in Michigan, the governor is a Democratic woman. Abortion is going to stay legal in Michigan for at least the next four years.

This "underground railroad" is being organized with secret codewords and everything.

Uhhhh…...honey......it's not illegal. It's ok to leave Ohio and go to Michigan, and the Ohio legislature can't make anything illegal that happens in Michigan.

I've been informed that we are going to register as one of the safe houses where Ohio women who need abortions can stay. I mentioned I wasn't really keen on the idea, but very shortly into the conversation, I changed to "Good idea, honey."

The truth is I have no objection at all, and approve of it happening. I just don't think my style of people skills are the sort that you would want around a woman who is under a lot of stress just before, or after, she aborts a pregnancy. I'm more of a "How's it going? Beer's in the fridge" sort of host. However, my wife the psychologist can probably do a much better job.


What I found funny about the whole thing, though, was the whole sense of urgency and overall extreme significance of this effort. There's no reason it has to be underground. We don't need codewords. I know the people she was talking to, though, and they take themselves Very Seriously, so "underground railroad" it is. I guess it pays tribute to our Detroit heritage. Back in the day when this was the quickest way to Canada for escaped slaves from Missouri, Kentucky, and thereabouts, Detroit had a lot of Underground Railroad traffic.

How adorable. As a man you aren't likely equipped to fully appreciate the concerns engendered in women by this rapidly devolving state of affairs. It has got to the point that there is looming on the not-distant horizon the possibly of the Supreme Court soon enough striking down Roe v Wade. Our principal near-term hope is RBG remaining kicking 'til the Dems put to rout the Repugnicans, and Justice Roberts retaining his good sense.

 

[Belz...]

I'm just arguing that I don't think that the claim abortion is wrong is obviously stupid and when you try to see it from the perspective that abortion is like murder, you can understand their actions without attributing them to malice, misogyny and evil.

Of course you can, but then you couldn't dismiss their concerns out of hand.

 

[Belz...]

An aborted fetus is not more special then the countless billions upon countless billion of fertilized egg shells naturally expelled every year.

Not to support the pro-life side, but: Is it different from the millions upon millions of human cadavers we get each year? The whole question is whether a foetus is more one than the other. I know where my conclusion lies, but it can be entirely reasonable to conclude something else.

IOW they don't care about saving fetuses, they care about punishing women and doctors.

...who kill foetuses. Again, that's in their minds.

Illegal abortion is also an option.

No legal option.

But I tend to see physical burdens as social burdens. If you're drowning and I try to save you, I don't get to change my mind halfway through because the physical burden is too inconvenient. A firefighter doesn't get to opt out of carrying people from a burning building because "lol people are heavy".

Is that... an analogy?

"Hey I don't care if a Woman's basic rights are taken away as long as I get my Tax cuts".

Well, they don't see it as a woman's basic right because they think no one has the right to murder. Well, except the state, that is.

 

[Belz...]

Like I already said, a relative of mine DID face that. She WAS raped by her father. Her mother had died in a car accident, so belief wasn't relevant. She DID have an abortion. And guess what: it didn't protect her. It enabled her father to continue to rape her, for years. And it eventually drove her to suicide.

But the problem there wasn't the abortion; it was her father.

Wow. I'm actually adding "A 12 year old rape victim being forced to carry to term is a BAD THING" to the list of things I've managed to find people to be contrarian over.

Joe, seriously, people who disagree with you can have legitimate points on this issue. Even my own conclusion ("up to viability") is a compromise. Sure, a 12 year-old carrying a foetus to term and then having a child is horrible, but the argument that the child should not pay with its life for that is not crazy.

Again I'll take it over you telling the 13 year old rape victim to carry the baby.

Reminds me of the egging thread. Either one agrees with me or they're Nazi supporters.

 

[phiwum]

There is no way to convict a doctor without also convicting the one he is performing on: if abortion is murder, then asking someone to do it is solicitation to commit murder.
People who wrote the law clearly didn't care about how the law works.

I don't see why the legislature can't pass a law that says (1) if a doctor performs an abortion, he has committed homicide and can be prosecuted under the appropriate law but (2) a woman requesting this procedure cannot be prosecuted under any relevant law. I suppose a court might find that unconstitutional, but it's not immediately apparent to me what the argument would be.

Absent a court ruling, the legislature can do precisely what you say they can't. (Of course, there's a fairly obvious argument that the law is unconstitutional that has nothing to do with your point, but there's also a greater likelihood that the Supreme Court will decide it's kosher than at any time since Roe v Wade. I still think it's pretty darned unlikely to be okayed by the justices, but I'm not nearly as confident as I'd like.)

 

[Meadmaker]

It might not be illegal -- yet -- but there are certainly reasons why a woman might need to hide what she's doing from parents, spouses, partners, etc., not to mention evading the crazies who shoot doctors, blow up clinics, etc.

And don't be so sure that crossing a state line will save you from the long arm of the law:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...bortion-subjects-women-to-life-in-prison.html

Yeah.....uhhh...about that Slate article....

Oh, wait. It has already been said. A lot. Never mind.

 

[Ziggurat]

How adorable. As a man you aren't likely equipped to fully appreciate the concerns engendered in women by this rapidly devolving state of affairs.

https://babylonbee.com/news/man-ide...ong-enough-to-voice-valid-opinion-on-abortion
It's satire... but is it?

 

[KDLarsen]

https://babylonbee.com/news/man-ide...ong-enough-to-voice-valid-opinion-on-abortion
It's satire... but is it?

Can't be much worse than what's going on in the real world. Some real knee-slappers in here: https://thinkprogress.org/republica...on-science-georgia-alabama-ohio-e298f362f7cb/

My personal favourite was the first one, where women are apparently seeking out abortions before they know they're pregnant. Try to wrap your head around that.

 

[Bob001]

Yeah.....uhhh...about that Slate article....

Oh, wait. It has already been said. A lot. Never mind.

A prosecution might not succeed, and a conviction might not be upheld. However, nothing would prevent a grandstanding DA from pressing charges, with all the attendant expense and legal misery. If the law contends that a fetus is a person from conception, then carrying the fetus out of state to "kill" it wouldn't be any different legally from carrying your grandma across state lines to put her to "sleep."

And every year legislation is proposed (so far not passed) to make it a federal crime for anyone other than her parents to take a minor out of state for an abortion.
https://www.care2.com/causes/what-i...-to-cross-state-lines-to-get-an-abortion.html

 

[Minoosh]

For the pro choice side...

Do you have an argument that the "abortion is murder" side hasn't heard yet? If not, why even discuss the subject with them?

I think I might.

What if the pro-choice side stipulated that yes, abortion ends a human life? Not that it's murder, because murder has a specific legal meaning, but that it might qualify as homicide. Well, we kill people sometimes, innocent people, and we justify it as collateral damage for the greater good.

I would say it's obvious that Alabama doesn't consider abortion to be murder, or even a crime, since pregnant women are not held criminally liable. In fact, there is great precedence to argue that early abortion has not been considered murder, or homicide, in common law, the Bible, U.S. history and Catholic-Protestant history. Destroying zygotes or early-stage embryos is not considered a crime or a sin among many evangelicals, although it is definitively sinful in Catholic doctrine.

Maybe fighting all this stuff point-by-point, as is done in litigation, is necessary to tease out the myriad inconsistencies in abortion laws and arrive at something like consensus. It's too bad that girls/women will be forced to carry rapist's offspring to term or that women may be imprisoned, but oh well.

 

[Minoosh]

If the goal is deterrence (rather than retributive justice), then that actually makes sense.

If the goal is deterrence, then the laws also should talk about sex education and access to contraceptives. Under those circumstances abortion falls.

Doctors act as a choke point for abortion services. Expanding prosecution to women adds a lot more work for not much more deterrent effect.

Principles are sacrificed because it's less work?

Also, doctors aren't really necessary for abortions, though it's better to have a health-care professional involved.