Author Topic: Alabama  (Read 8010 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #50 on: May 16, 2019, 12:35:01 PM »
thoughts and prayers.

Yes, every time there's a school shooting we can see how effective that approach is. Apparently, the effects persist right up until the next school shooting.

Given the support for abortion across religious lines, in this particular case a bit less praying would likely bring a resolution to the whole situation.

fuzzy math

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • Age: 37
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2019, 12:37:46 PM »
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2019, 12:44:43 PM »

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Alabama
« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2019, 12:52:06 PM »

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.
Well seeing as Kavanaugh just ignored stare decisis.. I don't see that as a convincing argument.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2019/05/13/supreme-court-shows-its-ready-to-overrule-precedent-dissent-sounds-alarm-in-california-v-hyatt/#38333f7c4ccb

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Alabama
« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2019, 01:02:40 PM »
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

I've read similar arguments, that Alabama in their zeal overshot the mark and produced a law too extreme to make it to the Supreme Court. Other states are passing slightly less extreme laws that have better odds.

And I'm convinced that for Trump at least riling up the base is a primary outcome. I don't think he gives a crap about abortion rights either way, but is happy to avail himself of the obvious political utility.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: Alabama
« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2019, 01:11:29 PM »

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.
Well seeing as Kavanaugh just ignored stare decisis.. I don't see that as a convincing argument.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2019/05/13/supreme-court-shows-its-ready-to-overrule-precedent-dissent-sounds-alarm-in-california-v-hyatt/#38333f7c4ccb

Exactly. As far as I can tell, Trump nominated Kavanaugh precisely for one qualification: his ability to pretend to give a shit about stare decisis during his confirmation hearings even though he clearly never did.

jeninco

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Location: .... duh?
Re: Alabama
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2019, 01:42:03 PM »

He gave them 2 Supreme Court Justices likely to be sympathetic to these laws, which is why they're passing these laws now. These are all intended to give the SC cases to hear that could overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump deserves a lot of blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this.

Adhering to stare decisis, Justice Kavanaugh will exercise judicial restraint and vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's liberal bloc to uphold Roe if a challenge to it comes before the Court.

I'm not sufficiently informed of  Justice Gorsuch's judicial temperament to confidently predict  how he would vote.
Well seeing as Kavanaugh just ignored stare decisis.. I don't see that as a convincing argument.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2019/05/13/supreme-court-shows-its-ready-to-overrule-precedent-dissent-sounds-alarm-in-california-v-hyatt/#38333f7c4ccb

Exactly. As far as I can tell, Trump nominated Kavanaugh precisely for one qualification: his ability to pretend to give a shit about stare decisis during his confirmation hearings even though he clearly never did.

Well, and because he identified with his drunken rapey ways.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2019, 02:19:15 PM »
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced  vis--vis my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Supreme Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.





« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 03:40:21 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2019, 02:31:11 PM »

I've read similar arguments, that Alabama in their zeal overshot the mark and produced a law too extreme to make it to the Supreme Court. Other states are passing slightly less extreme laws that have better odds.


Precisely.

I cannot conceive (bad pun!)of any district court or circuit court upholding this Draconian antiabortion statute.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2019, 02:33:21 PM »
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced vis-a'-vis  my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately it would appear that Trump, via the more extreme parts of the Republican establishment, has probably appointed two judges whose whole purpose is to allow their personal perspectives and prejudices to colour their decisions.   If they possibly can reverse Roe v Wade, they will.

Khaetra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 583
Re: Alabama
« Reply #60 on: May 16, 2019, 02:58:27 PM »
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced vis-a'-vis  my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately it would appear that Trump, via the more extreme parts of the Republican establishment, has probably appointed two judges whose whole purpose is to allow their personal perspectives and prejudices to colour their decisions.   If they possibly can reverse Roe v Wade, they will.

If only there were a video of Trump actually saying that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTSVzSiRpcI

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #61 on: May 16, 2019, 03:06:36 PM »
I won't say they are morons; I do say there is more than one ignoramus among them.

The Alabama legislators who passed this Draconian  bill, and Governor Ivey who signed it into law, don't get it either.

 Alabama's fanatical  antiabortion law won't achieve  their  overt objective of moving challenges to it through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the Court's review of the statute will ultimately result  in its overrule of Roe v. Wade.

Doubtless, the statute is unduly burdensome and so  flagrantly in violation of a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to terminate her pregnancy that lower courts will surely strike it down and the Supreme Court, in agreement with those lower  court rulings, will not hear challenges  to them, the antipodal result of the result sought by the Alabaman zealots.

The counterproductive myopia of their misguided strategy  is glaring.

Please tell me you're a legal scholar so I can hope this remains true.

I'd say the secondary outcome of all this is that it riles up the republican base (who might otherwise remain apathetic) to return to the polls in 2020 while they watch this bouncing around in the courts.

Yes, I hold a law degree and I am a constitutional scholar.

Your confidence in my confidence is not misplaced vis-a'-vis  my confidence  in Roe's longevity and durability as a settled and reaffirmed precedent of the Court for the reason that I do not permit my personal, constitutional perspectives to color analysis of constitutional issues when my object is to be informative of them. I strive to be scrupulously neutral. How courts, high and low have ruled or are likely to  rule, their ratio decidendi is what matters: My constitutional  preferences do not.

My primary interest is constitutional cases of the 20th  and 21st century that adjudicate issues of  the unalienable liberties, the natural rights  enshrined in  the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately it would appear that Trump, via the more extreme parts of the Republican establishment, has probably appointed two judges whose whole purpose is to allow their personal perspectives and prejudices to colour their decisions.   If they possibly can reverse Roe v Wade, they will.

In some states, Tenth-Amendment federalism's legislative power is the power antiabortion  legislators will exercise  to increasingly restrict a woman's constitutional, fundamental right to choose abortion.

In other states  legislators  will uphold a woman's fundamental right to choose abortion by amending their constitutions to include it.

The antipodal  results of these exercises of legislative power encapsulate the essence of federalism.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 03:09:20 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6533
Re: Alabama
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2019, 11:11:02 AM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?
It is not.  In the slightest.

Even dead bodies have more autonomy.  If you aren't an organ donor and you're dead, they just bury your perfectly good organs with you.  Nuts, eh?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2019, 11:29:01 AM »
I think the GOP stance on sexual education is a really ugly version of the trolley car problem. They could fully fund Planned Parenthood (and parallel organizations) and all of the programs related to sexual and women's health and drastically reduce the abortion rate (this is decisively backed up by data). Or, they could decide that a small percentage of medical procedures are bad and defund the whole thing, along with pretty much any sex ed except for abstinence. This is also decisively shown to increase unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates.

It's almost as if they are just trying to control people and enforce religious dogma. I have zero problem with them leading their own lives this way. I do have a problem with having their religious beliefs hoisted on others. Ugh.

Louisville

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
Re: Alabama
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2019, 11:50:54 AM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.
You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2019, 12:23:07 PM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.

You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.

Interesting.


So, if my neighbour tied me down, cut out my kidney, and got an unethical doctor friend to transplant it into him, I'd be SOL.  It's in his body and we would have to actively cut it out (killing him) to give me back my own kidney.

I realize that this probably sounds like a ridiculous scenario, so let me hit you with one that is maybe a bit more believable:  A woman is raped and becomes pregnant.  Although she was impregnated forcibly against her will, that violation should now cause the loss of her autonomy over her own body?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2019, 01:00:04 PM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.
You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.
An abortion is not active, it is reactive.  The abortion is not creating a problem ab initio, it is rectifying a problem.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3847
  • Age: 28
Re: Alabama
« Reply #67 on: May 17, 2019, 01:12:46 PM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?
This is truly the best way to frame the whole thing. 

It's a hell of a lot better an argument than "my body, my choice" or similar, which to someone that thinks abortion is murder would just say "Cool story, still murder."  Same goes for rape/incest honestly.  If abortion-is-murder types are truly consistent, of course there should be no exceptions at all.  Murder = bad, end of story.

Also, I see this a lot being framed as "men taking away rights from women" but the depressing thing is that the numbers between men and women pro-lifers is really damn close.  According to Pew 36% of women and 37% of men think abortion should be illegal.  According to the data, it's religion and party identity that most predict one's opinion on abortion (White evangelical Protestants and Republicans are unsurprisingly the two groups there of which a majority think it should be illegal).  The association with age is very weak (I didn't expect this.).

I'm as pro-choice as the next liberal atheist millennial, but we need to frame any talking points correctly or it just causes unproductive shouting matches.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Alabama
« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2019, 01:14:30 PM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.

You're not "failing to provide it a womb", you're removing it from a womb. It's active, rather than passive like the kidney example.

Interesting.


So, if my neighbour tied me down, cut out my kidney, and got an unethical doctor friend to transplant it into him, I'd be SOL.  It's in his body and we would have to actively cut it out (killing him) to give me back my own kidney.

I realize that this probably sounds like a ridiculous scenario, so let me hit you with one that is maybe a bit more believable:  A woman is raped and becomes pregnant.  Although she was impregnated forcibly against her will, that violation should now cause the loss of her autonomy over her own body?

I swear there was a Star Trek episode similar to your example...I think aliens stole body parts from the crew and then they had the dilemma of figuring out whether they could retrieve their body parts from the aliens...

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Alabama
« Reply #69 on: May 17, 2019, 01:32:15 PM »
Aha!!  It was the Phage. [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)/url] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

I think captain janeway made the wrong call on this, though.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Alabama
« Reply #70 on: May 17, 2019, 01:33:28 PM »

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Alabama
« Reply #71 on: May 17, 2019, 08:02:39 PM »
Aha!!  It was the Phage. [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)/url] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

I think captain janeway made the wrong call on this, though.

Wow, I hadn't seen that one.    It reminds me a little bit of "Merchant of Venice" - when is your property worth a pound of flesh?


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2019, 03:54:31 AM »
Here is what I think is an excellent discussion focusing on women's agency in having an abortion, in contrast to legislation which criminalises medical providers.

When Chris Hayes asks why this discrepancy, why does the legislation apply to the medical providers not the women, Emily Atkin says "because they don't want us to know that the cruelty is the point, the cruelty has always been the point".

https://www.msnbc.com/all  - "Arrest me you Alabama cowards"


RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2019, 06:37:43 AM »
One thing I don't understand about the Republican women - how are they not having the 13 children my great-grandmother had when there was no birth control?  If  states that are most restrictive of abortion are also most restrictive of contraceptives, these married women should be having 11-15 babies.  This isn't happening.  And when their unmarried daughters get pregnant, and when their unmarried sons get their girlfriends pregnant, are they right back to "they have to get married"?  I feel like I am back in the '50s and early '60's.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2019, 11:17:27 AM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2019, 11:28:11 AM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.
The only people who have a obligation to feed the newborn child are parents who have accepted that legal obligation, and who even if they have accepted that obligation may delegate the job to others, and anyone who has a professional obligation to the newborn child.  Someone who has an abortion is someone who is saying "I do not accept any legal obligation to let this foetus grow in my body".

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2019, 12:00:03 PM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.


I agree with you, if the situations were comparable it would be a morally bankrupt argument.  But it's possible to give up a child that can't be fed for adoption.  Nobody loses rights to their person in doing so, and the child is perfectly fine.  This is quite different than what's going on in both scenarios that I brought up.

Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so.  There are no risks associated with feeding a child.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2019, 12:17:48 PM »

I realize that this probably sounds like a ridiculous scenario, so let me hit you with one that is maybe a bit more believable:  A woman is raped and becomes pregnant.  Although she was impregnated forcibly against her will, that violation should now cause the loss of her autonomy over her own body?


A marry-your-rapist law is another  unthinkable, abominable abridgement of a woman's autonomy.

Wikipedia

A marry-your-rapist law, marry-the-rapist law or rape-marriage law is a law regarding rape that exonerates a man or boy from prosecution for rape, sexual assault, statutory rape, abduction or similar acts if the offender marries his female victim. The "marry-your-rapist" law is a legal way for such a rapist to avoid punishment and prosecution.[1] Although the terms for this phenomenon were only coined in the 2010s,[2][3][4][5][6] the practice has existed in a number of legal systems in history, and continues to exist in some societies today in various forms.[7] Such laws were common around the world until the 1970s. Since the late 20th century, the remaining laws of this type have been increasingly challenged and repealed in a number of countries.[4][8]
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 12:56:19 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2019, 12:53:03 PM »


Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion. 


 Decriminalization of abortion, and the determination  that a woman has a constitutional, fundamental right to choose to terminate her pregnancy is due in part to the Roe Court's cognizance that "Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth."


Roe v. Wade (1973)



Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence.

The second reason is concerned with abortion as a medical procedure. When most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman. [n43]   

This was particularly true prior to the [p149]  development of antisepsis. Antiseptic techniques, of course, were based on discoveries by Lister, Pasteur, and others first announced in 1867, but were not generally accepted and employed until about the turn of the century.

Abortion mortality was high. Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today.

Thus, it has been argued that a State's real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.

Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe.

Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. [n44] 

 Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. Of course, important state interests in the areas of health and medical standards do remain.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2019, 12:54:01 PM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.


The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.


I agree with you, if the situations were comparable it would be a morally bankrupt argument.  But it's possible to give up a child that can't be fed for adoption.  Nobody loses rights to their person in doing so, and the child is perfectly fine.  This is quite different than what's going on in both scenarios that I brought up.

Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so.  There are no risks associated with feeding a child.


Louisville pointed out the flaw in your original argument, so you posted an alternative explanation.  I pointed out a flaw in your alternative explanation, so you re-asserted your original argument.  You're dancing in circles.


Taking active steps to harm a person, is not the same as choosing not to assist them.  One is active interference and the other is not.  They are treated very differently in the Law and widely considered to be different morally.  If you can't see what that difference is, I don't know what to tell you.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #80 on: May 18, 2019, 01:05:29 PM »
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control and super hard to get abortions) are not having 10+ babies.

If no-one can explain it, I will assume the worst, that they only have sex to make a baby, and the rest of the time there is no sex in the marriage.  At which point some of the worst politicians/ministers/etc. who have been found to have affairs are explained - they are not "getting it" at home.

Someone please tell me this scenario is wrong.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #81 on: May 18, 2019, 01:10:51 PM »
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2019, 01:19:58 PM »
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2019, 01:20:40 PM »
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2019, 01:42:14 PM »
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.

Yes I was serious.   

From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.  Condoms and contraceptive creams have a failure rate.*  In Canada the pill and the IUD are by doctor prescription only.  If an American woman lives in a small town and can't find a doctor who will prescribe this for her, because her state government has cracked down, what is she going to do?  Use a condom and contraceptive cream and  keep a calendar?  Lovely, we are back in the 50's and 60's.  I was in University when "Our bodies, our selves" (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/) came out - it was revolutionary.  I don't want my daughter and potential grand-daughters stuck in a time warp.

So I was serious in asking how these women manage birth control, given that their moral premise is that birth control and abortion are about equally wrong.**


* I somehow doubt a rapist will be considerate enough to wear a condom, given the Alabama legislation doesn't allow for abortion of pregnancies due to rape.  A pregnancy is not his problem.

** Seriously, if the only issue were abortion, anti-abortionists would be the strongest proponents of birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would potentially be ended by abortion.  Since they are not, the larger issue is obviously control of a woman's body and her sexual life.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2019, 01:47:41 PM »
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law? 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #86 on: May 18, 2019, 02:01:54 PM »
So, I've never had a great answer to this question:

My neighbour has severe kidney failure, and will die without a kidney.  I'm a donor match, and have two healthy kidneys . . . and there are no other donors around.  I don't really like my neighbour though, so won't give him my kidney.  This means that he will die.  Forcing me to undergo surgery and forever alter my life is totally unacceptable of course, because I have autonomy over my own body.

A woman is pregnant, and the fetus will die without her to grow in.  This woman isn't able to financially support another child, had a really hard time during the birth of her last child (nearly dying), and so wants to have an abortion.  This means that the fetus will die.  Preventing the woman from undergoing surgery and forcing her to forever alter her life is totally acceptable of course, because she doesn't have autonomy over her body.

How is this logically consistent in any way?

Making someone die (the fetus) and letting someone die (the neighbor) aren't the same thing. The two examples aren't equivalent, so no logical consistency is required.
I support abortion rights, by the way - just answering your question.

I don't follow your distinction.

It's possible to remove a fetus without killing it.  At that point, is the fetus not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to provide it a womb doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbour with a kidney.



The same could be said about a newborn child - is it not free to live or die on it's own?  Failing to feed it doesn't make it die any more than failing to provide the neighbor with a kidney?  This is a morally bankrupt argument.


I agree with you, if the situations were comparable it would be a morally bankrupt argument.  But it's possible to give up a child that can't be fed for adoption.  Nobody loses rights to their person in doing so, and the child is perfectly fine.  This is quite different than what's going on in both scenarios that I brought up.

Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so.  There are no risks associated with feeding a child.


Louisville pointed out the flaw in your original argument, so you posted an alternative explanation.

No, I demonstrated why the 'flaw' pointed out doesn't hold up under scrutiny (I've highlighted this part above so you can more easily find it).  There is no difference between leaving a person who needs a kidney transplant to die on his own and leaving a fetus who needs a womb to die on it's own.



I pointed out a flaw in your alternative explanation, so you re-asserted your original argument. 

This is a mischaracterization of what was written.  If you'll more carefully read above, you'll find an explanation of why the situation that you describe is not at all comparable to the one under discussion.  Specifically, there need be no infringement of personal autonomy when feeding a child.  Bearing and birthing a child does infringe on a woman's personal autonomy.  That makes the two scenarios quite different.



Taking active steps to harm a person, is not the same as choosing not to assist them.  One is active interference and the other is not.  They are treated very differently in the Law and widely considered to be different morally.  If you can't see what that difference is, I don't know what to tell you.

As previously mentioned, it is possible to remove a fetus from the womb without killing it.  At this point there is no active interference and no difference between the abortion and kidney donor scenario.



Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 

Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

"Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

I agree with you that maternal mortality rates are pretty low.  I'd feel more comfortable letting the woman who is at risk of death be the judge of how much those risks matter though, rather than choosing for her.


Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law? 

A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person. 

I'd personally argue that a fetus should be treated as a person when that fetus can live out of the womb, on it's own.  This would include late stage fetuses, but would not include those in the first trimester.

If you're going to argue that all fetus are people, you'll find yourself in a lot of situations that don't make much sense.  For example, would you charge a newborn with murder for killing it's sibling in the (very common - about 1 in 8 pregnancies) case of a vanishing twin?  If not, why not?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2019, 02:13:30 PM »
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law?
Wrong question.  My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2019, 02:13:46 PM »
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.

Yes I was serious.   

From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.
I don't see this.  Do you have a source showing that access is significantly restricted?  Some doctors or pharmacists are allowed to refuse care based on personal beliefs, but are they refusing to prescribe BC?  You think that is widespread, based on .. what?


Quote
Condoms and contraceptive creams have a failure rate.*  In Canada the pill and the IUD are by doctor prescription only.  If an American woman lives in a small town and can't find a doctor who will prescribe this for her, because her state government has cracked down, what is she going to do?  Use a condom and contraceptive cream and  keep a calendar?  Lovely, we are back in the 50's and 60's.  I was in University when "Our bodies, our selves" (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/) came out - it was revolutionary.  I don't want my daughter and potential grand-daughters stuck in a time warp.

So I was serious in asking how these women manage birth control, given that their moral premise is that birth control and abortion are about equally wrong.**
You originally asked why Republicans in restrictive states aren't having 10+ children, under the assumption that they have difficulty accessing birth control.  The vast majority of them do not have any trouble accessing birth control. 


Quote
* I somehow doubt a rapist will be considerate enough to wear a condom, given the Alabama legislation doesn't allow for abortion of pregnancies due to rape.  A pregnancy is not his problem.


** Seriously, if the only issue were abortion, anti-abortionists would be the strongest proponents of birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would potentially be ended by abortion.  Since they are not, the larger issue is obviously control of a woman's body and her sexual life.
The pro-life position is that the unborn child is a person, regardless of whether it was conceived with consent.  The rape is evil, but the unborn child is innocent and deserves protection. 

You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #89 on: May 18, 2019, 02:33:26 PM »
Quote
As previously mentioned, it is possible to remove a fetus from the womb without killing it.  At this point there is no active interference and no difference between the abortion and kidney donor scenario.



Removing a fetus from the womb IS the active interference.  That is the abortion.  Taking a live, growing, unborn child away from the environment in which it can thrive, and moving it to a new environment where it will certainly die.


Quote
[size=0px]A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person. [/size][/size][size=0px] [/size]

Not currently.  That is something the pro-life movement would like to change.

Quote
[/size][size=0px]I'd personally argue that a fetus should be treated as a person when that fetus can live out of the womb, on it's own.  This would include late stage fetuses, but would not include those in the first trimester.[/size]
[size=0px]The youngest surviving babies have been born at 21 weeks and 5 days.  Would you support making abortion illegal after this time?

[/size]
Quote
[size=0px]If you're going to argue that all fetus are people, you'll find yourself in a lot of situations that don't make much sense.  For example, would you charge a newborn with murder for killing it's sibling in the (very common - about 1 in 8 pregnancies) case of a vanishing twin?  If not, why not?
[/size]
[size=0px]
For the same reason 1 year old's are not prosecuted for murder.  They don't have the capacity to know that what they are doing is wrong.  In the case of the vanishing twin, there is no known ability for the surviving twin to prevent the death.[/size]

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Alabama
« Reply #90 on: May 18, 2019, 02:38:18 PM »
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law?
Wrong question.  My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.


It doesn't have to be one or the other.  They can both be considered people, and their rights and responsibilities can be balanced against each other. 


NotJen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
Re: Alabama
« Reply #91 on: May 18, 2019, 02:39:26 PM »
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control and super hard to get abortions) are not having 10+ babies.
...
Someone please tell me this scenario is wrong.

Republican women are not against contraceptives.  That part of your scenario is wrong.

The women I know who support the new Alabama law are totally for using all the contraceptives you can get your hands on.  We (apparently, I haven't tested this) can get emergency contraceptives from pharmacies and clinics without a prescription.  Condoms are everywhere.  Pills require a prescription (everywhere in the US?), but if you have access to a doctor and a pharmacy are no problem.  I got free exam/pills at my Alabama university when I was a student.  If you don't have access to a doctor or pharmacy, yes, your options would be limited.

Quote
From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.

Curious where you're seeing this.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #92 on: May 18, 2019, 03:23:51 PM »
Quote
Bringing a child to term is statistically much riskier to a woman's life than an abortion.  Donating a kidney is statistically much riskier to your life than not doing so. 


If left without interference, the kidney patient would die.  If left without interference, the unborn child would continue to grow and develop until birth.  This is the active vs passive distinction - you choose to actively kill the unborn child.


Current maternal mortality rates in the USA are < 24 deaths per 100,000 births.  That's less than 0.03% chance of death, and most of those deaths are preventable.  That is not "much riskier".  Especially when considering the cost (a human life).

The cost is not "a human life".  The cost is a woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There was at one point (may still be, for all I know) a trend for anti-abortion activists to show pictures of a foetus in the womb as an "ahh" moment, saying "here's a person".  What they always forgot to mention is that in the background of all those pictures was a (partial) picture of another person: the woman whose womb was host to that foetus.  It's the fundamental flaw in every anti-abortion activist's rhetoric: they are so keen to state that a foetus is a person that they forget, deliberately or otherwise, that a woman is a person.


I don't think they forget that women are people.  They are pointing out that the unborn child is also a person, and it should be treated as such.


At what point do you think the unborn child should be treated as a person under the law?
Wrong question.  My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.


It doesn't have to be one or the other.  They can both be considered people, and their rights and responsibilities can be balanced against each other.

In practice it does have to be one or the other.  And given that situation, the choice is between a woman having autonomy and a woman being subjugated.

Plus, the abortion law is not about giving rights to a foetus, it's about taking away the rights of a doctor to treat a patient and the right of a patient to have medical treatment.  Nothing in the substance of the Act is about the rights of a foetus at all: that's a complete strawman argument.  See the text of the Act: section 4 makes it an offence for someone to perform an abortion and section 5 states that the woman is not criminally or civilly liable for having an abortion.  Nothing about the rights of a foetus as against the rights of a woman.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190516054511/https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB314/id/2018876

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #93 on: May 18, 2019, 03:53:29 PM »
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control and super hard to get abortions) are not having 10+ babies.
...
Someone please tell me this scenario is wrong.

Republican women are not against contraceptives.  That part of your scenario is wrong.

The women I know who support the new Alabama law are totally for using all the contraceptives you can get your hands on.  We (apparently, I haven't tested this) can get emergency contraceptives from pharmacies and clinics without a prescription.  Condoms are everywhere.  Pills require a prescription (everywhere in the US?), but if you have access to a doctor and a pharmacy are no problem.  I got free exam/pills at my Alabama university when I was a student.  If you don't have access to a doctor or pharmacy, yes, your options would be limited.

Quote
From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.

Curious where you're seeing this.

I'm glad my worst-case scenario is wrong.  I also want women (and men) to have all the access they need to birth control of all sorts.  Which in a worst-case scenario means an abortion.

I haven't really been seeing much of anything about contraceptives specifically.  I have seen articles pointing out that clinics such as Planned Parenthood have difficulty with providing all sorts of health care (contraceptives, pre-natal health checks) because of also providing abortions.  I haven't seen anything where anti-abortionists are massively promoting contraceptives.

Given this information:
https://www.babycenter.ca/a252/understanding-miscarriage
How common is miscarriage?
It depends when it happens. Sadly, early miscarriages are very common. Often, a woman miscarries before she even realizes she's pregnant. Perhaps as many as three-quarters of all fertilised eggs are lost in the very earliest days of pregnancy. After a positive pregnancy test, there's about a one in five chance of having an early miscarriage. This is when most miscarriages happen.


it is overoptimistic to assume that a fetus that was aborted early (morning after pill or early abortion) would have made it to birth. 

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #94 on: May 18, 2019, 04:03:13 PM »


My point is that a woman should always be treated as a person under the law, and not forced to be an unwilling incubator.  As long as you consider a woman to be a person then the personhood, or potential personhood, of the foetus is irrelevant.

In Roe, after exhaustive scrutiny  of the Constitution, the Supreme Court found that usage of the word "person," throughout the Constitution, in its  various Amendments and Articles, "has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Furthermore,  the  Court observed "that throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today." This observation, in conjunction with its other determinations,  led the Court to conclude "that the word 'person'...does not include the unborn."


« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 05:01:34 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Alabama
« Reply #95 on: May 18, 2019, 05:10:25 PM »
Given the wording of section 5, I wonder about how the use of misoprostol would shake out legally.
Quote
Section 5. No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.

And misoprostol for those who are not familiar with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misoprostol

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #96 on: May 18, 2019, 06:36:39 PM »
Given the wording of section 5, I wonder about how the use of misoprostol would shake out legally.
Quote
Section 5. No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.

And misoprostol for those who are not familiar with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misoprostol

It is obvious that by herself  a pregnant woman can perform her own abortion.

She can perform it with an implement or with drugs.

Section 5 is sloppy   draftsmanship  if the legislators who drafted it did not intend it to shield a women who performs her own abortion  from criminal or civil liability.

EDIT: Suppose in Alabama a  female physician aborted her own fetus and authorities were informed of it.

What an interesting case that would be.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 06:56:41 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #97 on: May 18, 2019, 08:27:42 PM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
As previously mentioned, it is possible to remove a fetus from the womb without killing it.  At this point there is no active interference and no difference between the abortion and kidney donor scenario.

Removing a fetus from the womb IS the active interference.  That is the abortion.  Taking a live, growing, unborn child away from the environment in which it can thrive, and moving it to a new environment where it will certainly die.

So if my neighbour cuts me open, steals my kidney, and implants it in himself so he can stay alive . . . then legally there should be nothing I can do about that from your point of view?  It would require active interference.



Quote
A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person.

Not currently.  That is something the pro-life movement would like to change.

Maybe we could just stick to the correct legal, medical, and dictionary terms as they stand right now.  (In that vein, using the term 'unborn child' is always incorrect.  A child is born, before it's born it's not a child.)



Quote from: GuitarStv
I'd personally argue that a fetus should be treated as a person when that fetus can live out of the womb, on it's own.  This would include late stage fetuses, but would not include those in the first trimester.

The youngest surviving babies have been born at 21 weeks and 5 days.  Would you support making abortion illegal after this time?

Why would I support forcing women to be incubators if a baby can survive and support itself?  No, if the fetus can survive at 21 weeks and 5 days, then remove it and let it survive on it's own.  If it's not developed enough to survive on it's own and requires the consent of another person to live, that's the whole reason that abortion is morally acceptable.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3847
  • Age: 28
Re: Alabama
« Reply #98 on: May 18, 2019, 10:30:41 PM »
the term 'unborn child' is always incorrect.  A child is born, before it's born it's not a child.
+1000 This drives me batty.  I get it's more emotionally charged to say "unborn child" or even just "child" but it's flat out wrong.  Maybe we could compromise and say it is a "pre-child" instead of fetus or child?

What we call something matters.  Same reason we still commonly call cannabis marijuana.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #99 on: May 19, 2019, 01:59:06 PM »



[/font]
Quote
[size=0px]A fetus is not (by legal or medical definition) a person. [/size][/size][size=0px] [/size]

Not currently.  That is something the pro-life movement would like to change.


Indeed it would.

Whether by the judicial branch, Congress, State legislatures, or amendment to the Constitution of the United States, establishment of fetal personhood is the holy grail doggedly sought for generations by antiabortion stalwarts throughout the United States.

Among its provisions, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Establishment of fetal personhood means that the Due Process Clause applies to a fetus. Consequently, the fetus  cannot legally be deprived of its life (aborted) without due process of law, a grave obstruction  of  a woman's exercise of her   fundamental right to choose abortion  that in almost all cases will  be fatal to it, a fatality that will be an exceeding triumph for the foes of Roe.



Roe v. Wade (1973)

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses,  for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.   On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument   that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2019, 02:04:09 PM by John Galt incarnate! »