• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

America transitions into Gilead

I think you are looking for a different word than misogyny. Sexist is probably a more accurate term for Biden.


Biden may like to sniff women's hair, but at least he hasn't felt self-entitled enough to grab them by their kitty-kat.

Just by that measure alone, he's already much farther ahead of the game than the orange octopus.
 
Biden may like to sniff women's hair, but at least he hasn't felt self-entitled enough to grab them by their kitty-kat.

Just by that measure alone, he's already much farther ahead of the game than the orange octopus.

No no. It's only bad when Dems/libs do it!

Perfectly acceptable when cons do it, as Zig has helpfully pointed out.
 
And if you dare say "Hey maybe we should have standards beyond comparisons to what some member of the other tribe did" we're told we're "Saying both sides are equally bad."
 
What they are trying to eliminate is elective abortion, which I suppose is a "huge swath".
:boggled: You suppose? Exactly which abortions are mandatory?

In their heart of hearts, I think a majority in this country does not want abortion criminalized. I'm not sure even most Republicans want it criminalized. This is nothing more than virtue signaling. Conservative legislatures have been doing this for decades, knowing their laws would be struck down. Kind of like Republicans calling for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It was a safe position of protest.

At this point there is a hella precedent for saying the right to an abortion is well-established law and policy. I'm not sure about precedents in regards to declaring a 6-week-old fetus a human being and giving it full rights under the law. Can you declare a zygote as a dependent on your tax returns? Buy it life insurance? Is it eligible for Medicaid? Will it be counted in the Census? Will there be custody fights? Etc.

I hope this will increase awareness of the Plan B option which is (for now) safe, legal and available over the counter. I hope there are volunteers willing to give women rides to other states, without fearing they will be charged as accessories to murder. It also will make no sense to make exceptions for rape and incest, obviously. And it will make no sense not to prosecute women getting abortions. The person who hires a hit man is still guilty even if they did not perform the actual murder. And why stop at the fetal heartbeat? That's as arbitrary a point as any. We might as well extend it to zygotes, which will raise issues for the IVF industry.

I asked my mom if abortion should be illegal and she said it's a sin. She is Republican, all for birth control and raised 2 adopted newborn boys. So she's pretty consistent. Yet she dodged the question. I used to think she was the Republican base, but she's 94, from another era entirely, and doesn't like Trump. In her heart of hearts, I do not think she wants abortion to be illegal. Bottom line, forcing a girl or woman to give birth against her will is probably not something she really wants.

Evolved common law has historically permitted abortion before "quickening" and even the Bible says that someone who assaults a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, is on the hook for financial damages only.

Usually I think Travis tortures himself with hyperbole, but I'm not sure in this case he's actually wrong. The Georgia Legislature's reasoning on this issue is deeply flawed. Should it become the law of the land, it will have boatloads of unintended consequences.
 
I think you are looking for a different word than misogyny. Sexist is probably a more accurate term for Biden.

I'm describing the people who support Biden. Using the standards that Democrats like to apply to others.
 
What they are trying to eliminate is elective abortion, which I suppose is a "huge swath".

And of course in ectopic pregnancies and other life threatening conditions that the fetus will never be viable and only risk the woman's life. But these thing will only effect poor women, not women to can travel(well except those who die from the refused abortions) so by definition not anyone who matters.
 
At this point there is a hella precedent for saying the right to an abortion is well-established law and policy. I'm not sure about precedents in regards to declaring a 6-week-old fetus a human being and giving it full rights under the law. Can you declare a zygote as a dependent on your tax returns? Buy it life insurance? Is it eligible for Medicaid? Will it be counted in the Census? Will there be custody fights? Etc.

Hell there is the fun of schrodinger's pregnancy because the 6 week old dates to the last period so you are technically pregnant before you even have sex if that sex produces a fetus.
 
In their heart of hearts, I think a majority in this country does not want abortion criminalized. I'm not sure even most Republicans want it criminalized. This is nothing more than virtue signaling.

There's a handful of discussions, debates stuck in the popular consciousness that I think have been a symbolic fight for some vague, impossible to put into words broad almost philosophical divide that we've come full circle.

I'll put all my cards on the table. I'm 100% pro-abortion rights to pretty much the most liberal degree that's reasonably on the table (As in I'm for open, no fault access to abortions pretty throughout the entire pregnancy) while at the same time not fully grasping why this is the debate it is.
 
Excellent post, Minoosh.

Why is it that those who complain the most about 'personal freedoms' being impinged upon by the government tend to be those who have wanted to control a person's personal life the most? Laws against a woman's right to control her own body, sodomy, homosexuality, interracial marriages, same-sex marriage were all supported largely by conservatives who rail against big government taking our 'rights' away.
 
Excellent post, Minoosh.

Why is it that those who complain the most about 'personal freedoms' being impinged upon by the government tend to be those who have wanted to control a person's personal life the most? Laws against a woman's right to control her own body, sodomy, homosexuality, interracial marriages, same-sex marriage were all supported largely by conservatives who rail against big government taking our 'rights' away.


You're assuming conservatives think of women, gays, and those icky non-white folk as being actual humans beings deserving of personal freedoms.

Their actions say otherwise.





Praise be to our white, blond-haired, blue-eyed Jeezus!

Amen.
 
I'll put all my cards on the table. I'm 100% pro-abortion rights to pretty much the most liberal degree that's reasonably on the table (As in I'm for open, no fault access to abortions pretty throughout the entire pregnancy) while at the same time not fully grasping why this is the debate it is.
I don't think I would have gotten an abortion back when I could get pregnant. That made me hypervigilant about birth control. But I had advantages a lot of girls/women didn't have.

Excellent post, Minoosh.

Why is it that those who complain the most about 'personal freedoms' being impinged upon by the government tend to be those who have wanted to control a person's personal life the most? Laws against a woman's right to control her own body, sodomy, homosexuality, interracial marriages, same-sex marriage were all supported largely by conservatives who rail against big government taking our 'rights' away.
If there are people who think life begins at conception and are willing to accept all of the ramifications of that, I might give them points for consistency. If Jesus Christ had said anything about abortion or homosexuality, at least the objection would be possibly "Christian." But I don't understand accepting part of the OT while jettisoning some of it entirely. Exodus does not treat human-caused miscarriages as murder, and the bit about cursing the fruit of a woman's womb is not exactly a pro-life position.
 
And of course in ectopic pregnancies and other life threatening conditions that the fetus will never be viable and only risk the woman's life. But these thing will only effect poor women, not women to can travel(well except those who die from the refused abortions) so by definition not anyone who matters.

Of course, they've declared that traveling out of state to get an abortion will be illegal and result in prison time too. So if you leave the state for an abortion, or miscarry, you'd better not go home.

I'm so glad I live in a state that legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade, and so isn't dependent on that ruling. I hope we don't end up having to run an underground railroad for pregnant women.
 
This might not be popular, but here goes.

The law of unintended consequences.

If California and New York can ignore the law on *whatever* settled issue, *whatever* state that decides they disagree with settled law can ignore the law likewise.
 
This might not be popular, but here goes.

The law of unintended consequences.

If California and New York can ignore the law on *whatever* settled issue, *whatever* state that decides they disagree with settled law can ignore the law likewise.

There's always going to be a balance on this and it's never gonna make everyone happy.

Yes, ignoring/circumventing/choosing to enforce/whatever a law is always crossing a line to some degree.

But on the other hand everything ever done ever could be taken to some unreasonable level by somebody somewhere. We are are not slaves to every possible outcome of every we take.

And besides in politics and law "Well that's settled" is a very weird statement to make.
 
I'm not sure "mandatory" is the right word. Non-elective abortions are those that are necessary to save the life of the mother.

Nonsense those are also elective, just ask any catholic hospital.

Then there are the abortions that you would clearly class as elective because they merely threaten the woman's life and the fetus has 0 chance of survival.
 
There's always going to be a balance on this and it's never gonna make everyone happy.

Yes, ignoring/circumventing/choosing to enforce/whatever a law is always crossing a line to some degree.

But on the other hand everything ever done ever could be taken to some unreasonable level by somebody somewhere. We are are not slaves to every possible outcome of every we take.

And besides in politics and law "Well that's settled" is a very weird statement to make.

I believe the a woman's' right to an abortion is a settled issue as of Roe v. Wade.

I believe that the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act are settled law.

I believe in marriage equality. Eventually the Supreme Court upheld marriage equality.

All those beliefs are A. O.K. in my state.

I don't believe that criminal illegal aliens ought to be protected from the legal consequences of their acts. The city I reside in has made the protection of criminally convicted illegal aliens a higher priority than protecting the safety of San Francisco residents and visitors.

And they've gotten away with it, at least so far. That may change if an important person is victimized, but evidently my friend Tony Bologna and two of his three sons getting murdered didn't rise to the level of political notice.

If a city/state can get away with protecting convicted criminals the way San Francisco and California has, some state will be emboldened to restrict or eliminate Civil/Voting/Abortion rights and possibly get away with it.
 
I believe the a woman's' right to an abortion is a settled issue as of Roe v. Wade.

You weren't paying really close attention in civics class, were you?

The supreme Court giveth,and a newly appointed supreme Court might very well taketh away.
 
Last edited:
The answer is never. I don't know what's in the Georgia law, but I am extremely confident that there is nothing in it that would make a woman stop seeing a doctor, and I am extremely confident it would not provide the death penalty for a pregnant woman who gets an abortion. I say that without even knowing the contents of the bill. I will probably look it up to say what the bill really says, but I'm confident it is not that.


I've read the law. I've read commentaries on the law.


Basically, it's not nearly as open and shut as the whole "Ohio ectopic pregnancy" thing was, but it's mostly straightforward. It's clear enough that there is a very obvious way in which the law is interpreted, and I would be very surprised if any other interpretation of the law that a judge would uphold, at least on appeal. (You never know what kind of idiotic ruling might happen at a local level.)


The bill amends a very specific section of Georgia law, dealing with illegal abortions. Yes, in every state of the union, some abortions are illegal. I can't just set up "Dave's abortion shop", and start performing abortions. I would be arrested and jailed. The same was true in Georgia, and said that anyone performing illegal abortions could get 1 to 10 years.


What the Georgia law does is amend that section on illegal abortions to make a whole lot more abortions illegal. In fact, most abortions would be illegal. The ones that would not be illegal would be

1) anything done before a fetal heartbeat.

2) any abortion before 20 weeks, if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, and a charge was made


3) The life of the mother is in danger

4) the pregnancy is "medically futile", meaning that the baby will not survive to the end of the term.


There might be a couple of other provisions, but those are the big ones.


Remember, in the above cases, it remains legal to get an abortion. All others, which is most of them, become illegal, and subject to Georgia's illegal abortion law, which has a jail term of 1 to 10 years.


In previous rulings, it has been said that only the provider can be jailed, not the actual woman having an abortion, even if self performed.



That's the straightforward, obvious, meaning of the bill. However, there is enough other language in the bill that I could see someone arguing that it means something else entirely. It's not likely the argument would succeed, but it isn't absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it might. In other words, someone might try to insist that it really means that killing an unborn child is murder. That's where all this hype about death penalties or life in prison come from. The bill doesn't say that. However, prosecutors and judges sometimes twist the meanings of statutes into tortuous interpretations, and it is not beyond possibility that they might do so here. It's not so absolutely, incredibly, clear in the bill that there's no room for someone to try it. It is America after all, and the law says what the lawyers want it to say, when all is said and done.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom