America transitions into Gilead

[3point14]

Okay, so given the large number of unwanted babies this policy will inevitably produce, when is the increased budget for orphanages, adoption services and childcare going to make it's way through the legislature?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Okay, so given the large number of unwanted babies this policy will inevitably produce, when is the increased budget for orphanages, adoption services and childcare going to make it's way through the legislature?

I don't get this. If they pass this law because they think abortion is murder, why would that have anything to do with extra funding?

Might as well say, "now that you made killing an adult illegal, are you going to pay for all these extra alive people around?"

 

[phiwum]

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.

Um, no.

 

[phiwum]

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.

Sorry, you do realize, I suppose that infants and children at least until puberty if not some time thereafter are not "fully developed" in the mental sense, right? You think it's fallacious to call infanticide murder?

The word murder does not imply those conditions must hold. It simply means "wrongful killing of a person". Now, unless you're suggesting that no killing is wrongful unless those conditions hold, I don't know what you're saying here.

 

[phiwum]

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.

And is someone who is conscious but requires machines to stay alive self-sustaining?

Your argument is simply not well-considered.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

She always has been, although contraception and legal abortion have done much to mitigate the risk.

 

[Stacyhs]

When my grandmother was diagnosed with a spine injury that needed immediate surgery back in the early 1930's, she was also discovered to be pregnant. The doctors told her that if she carried the baby to term she would almost certainly spend the rest of her life paralyzed and in a wheelchair. She was allowed to have a legal abortion, a rare occurrence in those days. As her life itself was not in danger, I wonder if she would be allowed under AL's new law to have that abortion.

 

[Meadmaker]

When my grandmother was diagnosed with a spine injury that needed immediate surgery back in the early 1930's, she was also discovered to be pregnant. The doctors told her that if she carried the baby to term she would almost certainly spend the rest of her life paralyzed and in a wheelchair. She was allowed to have a legal abortion, a rare occurrence in those days. As her life itself was not in danger, I wonder if she would be allowed under AL's new law to have that abortion.

I haven't read the Alabama law. The new Georgia law would allow it.

I would be pretty shocked if Alabama didn't allow it as well, but I haven't read the law.

 

[dudalb]

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.

Or, if they did, it would only happen once.
As someone once said, the quickest way to get a stupid law repealed is to strictly enforce it.

 

[Babbylonian]

I haven't read the Alabama law. The new Georgia law would allow it.

I would be pretty shocked if Alabama didn't allow it as well, but I haven't read the law.

I'm pretty shocked that someone who has been participating so much in this thread still hasn't bothered to become certain about what is in these laws, proposed or passed.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Okay, so given the large number of unwanted babies this policy will inevitably produce, when is the increased budget for orphanages, adoption services and childcare going to make it's way through the legislature?

Who cares?

Just so long as the child is birthed into the world, that's all that matters. Once they've been birthed, sorry kid, you're on your own.

We're talking about the only 1st world country on the planet that doesn't even legislate maternity/paternity leave nationwide for new parents in order for said new parents to properly bond and care for their newborn infant for the first 0-6 months of its life.

... but in the other corner of their mouths, claim themselves to be holding the moral highground when it comes to 'the sanctity of life' via banning abortions one state at a time.

The hypocrisy screams for itself.

 

[carlitos]

I don't get this.

Bull ****.

 

[Lurch]

How anyone can posit that removing from a womb a pea-sized blob that is more a parasite (utterly dependent upon the host/mother) than a human as "murder" baffles me. After all, nature herself terminates no small number of such lumps of developing flesh.

Yes, I'm deliberately rendering as crude my point. But the *potentiality* of a human is not the same as a viable human.

Now, we *are* emotional, social creatures, and so identify with and wish to preserve human life from the earliest moment. Who better than the bearer of new life--the woman--to grapple with the momentous decision to terminate a pregnancy? Why does a large fraction of the community feel that they and their laws are the superior arbiter?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I haven't read the Alabama law. The new Georgia law would allow it.

I would be pretty shocked if Alabama didn't allow it as well, but I haven't read the law.

Why a lot of them only make allowances for the life of the mother, merely being paralyzed is not life threatening. Ideologically blocking that is fine with many in the pro life community.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bull ****.

Who is the audience for 3point14's comment? People either agree already, or oppose abortion for reasons not overridden by the argument.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

Um, no.

She always has been...

So... which is it ?

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm pretty shocked that someone who has been participating so much in this thread still hasn't bothered to become certain about what is in these laws, proposed or passed.

I would take bets that I'm the only one in this thread who has actually read either law, and I would add 10:1 odds that I am the only one who has read both the new bill and the applicable sections of Georgia law that actually determine how the new law might be charged in light of the new bill.

But, hey, I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on that subject. You have read both bills haven't you? Along with section 16-5 of Georgia's code of laws, haven't you?

 

[BStrong]

I don't get this. If they pass this law because they think abortion is murder, why would that have anything to do with extra funding?

Might as well say, "now that you made killing an adult illegal, are you going to pay for all these extra alive people around?"

Because if the state is paying "X" amount before the new law to aide families with dependent children it's reasonable to project that the amount of aide will increase due to the births of children that otherwise would be aborted.

Like everything else, if the state outlaws abortion only folks w/o the financial means to travel out-of-state to seek treatment will be affected by the new law. If someone can't float the cost of a round trip bus ticket it's a pretty good bet they may end up on state assistance.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because if the state is paying "X" amount before the new law to aide families with dependent children it's reasonable to project that the amount of aide will increase due to the births of children that otherwise would be aborted.

Like everything else, if the state outlaws abortion only folks w/o the financial means to travel out-of-state to seek treatment will be affected by the new law. If someone can't float the cost of a round trip bus ticket it's a pretty good bet they may end up on state assistance.

So?

 

[Stacyhs]

How anyone can posit that removing from a womb a pea-sized blob that is more a parasite (utterly dependent upon the host/mother) than a human as "murder" baffles me. After all, nature herself terminates no small number of such lumps of developing flesh.

Yes, I'm deliberately rendering as crude my point. But the *potentiality* of a human is not the same as a viable human.

Now, we *are* emotional, social creatures, and so identify with and wish to preserve human life from the earliest moment. Who better than the bearer of new life--the woman--to grapple with the momentous decision to terminate a pregnancy? Why does a large fraction of the community feel that they and their laws are the superior arbiter?

Mother Nature is a murderer. Who knew?

I agree with your post. A pea-sized bunch of cells is not a 'person' any more than a germinated seed is a tomato.
"Life" does not a "person" make. Is a fertilized egg that is growing because its chromosomes are splitting 'alive'? Yes, in the strictest sense. But is it a 'person'? Not in my opinion. And therein lies the problem: it's an opinion, not a fact... as are all views on this.