• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GA considering novel pro-life/anti-abortion tactic

glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
Okay, first let's get beyond some of the hysterics in the article before we continue. First of all, regardless of your feelings on abortion it's obvious that this bill is constitutional (tasteful is a different question). Now, let's tackle how this reflects on both sides. First of all, this obviously puts those with a pro-choice in between a rock and a hard place - it's hard to make the argument with a straight face that a fetus is "just a lump of tissue, no different than cancer" that commonly gets advanced during abortion debates. If that were the case, then this law wouldn't be "psychological torture" to women - let's be honest, it would be far more honest if those advocating choice admitted that abortion is a moral wrong (and a large one at that), but their position represents a hobbesian choice that is the better of two bad outcomes.

Next, onto the pro-life side. What a disgusting, smug, and self-righteous thing to propose. Have you no decency? No shame? After claiming the moral high ground on a very contentious issue, you squander the spiritual capital you earned taking that position and use it to purchase this? You've let the goal subsume the means and destroy the soul of the woman involved to save the child? Somehow this line seems apt, and you'd be wise to ponder it applicability to yourselves, "we have become God's madmen."


Story link
 
I hardly think a woman can abort a baby with no emotional cost whatsoever. This is a sick political move, nothing more.
 
I tend to agree with your analysis here, but I think you're wrong about the pro-choice side...I think most of us tend to view abortion as a bad thing, but we also think it is sometimes the lesser of two evils. I don't mean to speak for anyone else here, but the rather flippant treatment of pregnancy shown by some pro-choicers is not as mainstream as some people might think.

This law isn't as clever as pro-lifers might think, most of us on the pro-choice side ALREADY think abortion is one of the more horrible things a woman will ever experience. To paraphrase someone who's name I can't remember at the moment, I tend to think abortion should be available, safe, and rare. This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
 
I tend to agree with your analysis here, but I think you're wrong about the pro-choice side...I think most of us tend to view abortion as a bad thing, but we also think it is sometimes the lesser of two evils. I don't mean to speak for anyone else here, but the rather flippant treatment of pregnancy shown by some pro-choicers is not as mainstream as some people might think.

This law isn't as clever as pro-lifers might think, most of us on the pro-choice side ALREADY think abortion is one of the more horrible things a woman will ever experience. To paraphrase someone who's name I can't remember at the moment, I tend to think abortion should be available, safe, and rare. This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
Click to expand...

That's because the vast majority of pro-choicers don't correctly identify the two evils in question. They tend to think of the second evil as being the inconvienience factor to the woman if an abortion was unavailable, or the emotional trauma she suffers as a result. The true evils are the IMHO absolute and indisputable immorality of taking a life vs. the removal of free will for a human being - reducing them to a slave and taking away their ability and right to make immoral choices.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought?

Funny how lefties make a fuss over a small ultrasound.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought?

Funny how lefties make a fuss over a small ultrasound.
Click to expand...

Funny how the righties make a fuss over not have total control over other people's lives, thoughts and decisions.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought?

Funny how lefties make a fuss over a small ultrasound.
Click to expand...

Funny how the righties make a fuss over not have total control over other people's lives, thoughts and decisions.
Click to expand...

An ultrasound is "total control"?
 
At under 3 months all the ultrasound is going to show is an unrecognizeable spec. And I have no problem with the law as long as Zendari is paying for the ultrasounds.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1The true evils are the IMHO absolute and indisputable immorality of taking a life vs. the removal of free will for a human being - reducing them to a slave and taking away their ability and right to make immoral choices.
Click to expand...

Could you explain to me then, as you've explicitly stated it, how abortion is any different from going to war to promote democracy?



 
Originally posted by: glenn1
First of all, regardless of your feelings on abortion it's obvious that this bill is constitutional (tasteful is a different question).
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not in the least obvious. In fact it's undoubtedly unconstitutional.

Why would it be Constitutional for a state to require a patient to receive a medically-unnecessary procedure? And how about the cost aspect? Insurance companies won't pay for medically-unnecessary procedures (and believe me, first-trimester sonograms and ultrasounds are worthless, and therefore unnecessary). Do you REALLY don't think these right-wing clowns . . ., er, legislators are going to add STATE funding to pay for these procedures? So that means the cost will come directly out of the patient's pocket, for a procedure that can't be justified. That's even more grist for the Constitutional mill.

This bill is a bozo stunt by a bozo legislature. It doesn't stand a chance of making it past even the lowest Federal court.

 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought?

Funny how lefties make a fuss over a small ultrasound.
Click to expand...

Who's making a fuss? I think this is a good idea. It would be even better if it were easier to adopt a kid....
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought?

Funny how lefties make a fuss over a small ultrasound.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about - the burden of proof here falls squarely under 'show that there is a reason this should be necessary'. While I suspect this law is constitutional, it is also totally frivolous, and therefore no one needs to justify 'not supporting it'.
 
Could you explain to me then, as you've explicitly stated it, how abortion is any different from going to war to promote democracy?
Click to expand...

When the pro-choice movement produces a St. Thomas Aquinas to develop a "just abortion theory," then we can have this conversation. Feel free to create your own thread if you want to explore the completely unrelated issue you raised (and/or its moral linkage to this issue) in greater detail but don't hijack this thread.

Actually, it's not in the least obvious. In fact it's undoubtedly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. You seem to believe that because a law is a stupid idea that it's unconstitutional. First of all, Roe was a poorly decided case regardless of the fact that I agree with its outcome (the case should have been thrown out in a summary judgement for 10th Amendment reasons), so the USSC's findings on subsequent cases holdings that state laws can't present an "undue restriction" are likewise bogus.

Why would it be Constitutional for a state to require a patient to receive a medically-unnecessary procedure?
Click to expand...

Yes it would, see above. States have the authority to regulate medical practices. Again, don't confuse stupid law with unconstitutional law.

Do you REALLY don't think these right-wing clowns . . ., er, legislators are going to add STATE funding to pay for these procedures? So that means the cost will come directly out of the patient's pocket, for a procedure that can't be justified. That's even more grist for the Constitutional mill.
Click to expand...

It is not unconstitutional to impose costs on someone to assert their rights, otherwise things like getting a permit to have a rally would be unconstitutional.

This bill is a bozo stunt by a bozo legislature. It doesn't stand a chance of making it past even the lowest Federal court.
Click to expand...

Statement 1 is probably correct. Statement 2, we'll see.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
Could you explain to me then, as you've explicitly stated it, how abortion is any different from going to war to promote democracy?
Click to expand...

When the pro-choice movement produces a St. Thomas Aquinas to develop a "just abortion theory," then we can have this conversation. Feel free to create your own thread if you want to explore the completely unrelated issue you raised (and/or its moral linkage to this issue) in greater detail but don't hijack this thread.

Actually, it's not in the least obvious. In fact it's undoubtedly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. You seem to believe that because a law is a stupid idea that it's unconstitutional. First of all, Roe was a poorly decided case regardless of the fact that I agree with its outcome (the case should have been thrown out in a summary judgement for 10th Amendment reasons), so the USSC's findings on subsequent cases holdings that state laws can't present an "undue restriction" are likewise bogus.

Why would it be Constitutional for a state to require a patient to receive a medically-unnecessary procedure?
Click to expand...

Yes it would, see above. States have the authority to regulate medical practices. Again, don't confuse stupid law with unconstitutional law.

Do you REALLY don't think these right-wing clowns . . ., er, legislators are going to add STATE funding to pay for these procedures? So that means the cost will come directly out of the patient's pocket, for a procedure that can't be justified. That's even more grist for the Constitutional mill.
Click to expand...

It is not unconstitutional to impose costs on someone to assert their rights, otherwise things like getting a permit to have a rally would be unconstitutional.

This bill is a bozo stunt by a bozo legislature. It doesn't stand a chance of making it past even the lowest Federal court.
Click to expand...

Statement 1 is probably correct. Statement 2, we'll see.
Click to expand...


Aaaand we have our expert on the constitution! No need for our Courts anymore! IF this internet guy says it, it cannot be struck down as unconstitutional!
 
1st Trimester ultrasound pictures

90% of women have abortions before 12 weeks . . . most of those our between 6-12 weeks. I think GA should probably invest its limited revenue in better preconception and prenatal care overall.

The "GA prenatal coercion plan" might have a chance if they spring for high resolution, 4D scans. But I doubt they've got that kind of cheddar.

The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregancies. Obviously, that entails quality sex/health education . . . likely another shortcoming in GA. The Alan Guttmacher Institute stats I've seen allege that more than half the women having an abortion were using some form of contraception. But those stats preceded wide availability of emergency contraception. GA should probably consider FREE emergency contraception as well.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
It is not unconstitutional to impose costs on someone to assert their rights, otherwise things like getting a permit to have a rally would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
As I don't want to create an ever-expanding quote-nest, I've quoted only one of your comments.

You seem to have a shakey understanding of the Constitution. The fact that the states have the power to make laws does not mean that they can make any darn law they please. And I'm not just referring to laws that violate rights explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. The states are much more constrained than that.

Almost all laws (including state laws) have REASONS for being. That is, there is a valid state interest in having the law.

For example, states impose fees for rally permits not to burden the rally-requestors or to stop rallies, but rather to partially defray the cost to the state of processing the request, subsequently coordinating activities in support of the rally, and disseminating information to the public (who might be affected by the rally). Such laws strike a balance between liberty (the unencumbered right to rally) and the state's interest in maintaining order and staying solvent.

Also, a state can certainly constitutionally enact STUPID laws - laws that the state believes will accomplish some desired end but which in fact do the opposite. For example, it seems obvious to many that anti-drug laws actually cause more harm to society than good, but the laws are in fact Constitutional. So I agree that the fact that a law is stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional.

But states cannot pass laws that restrict liberty without some perceived (and sufficiently important) interest in doing so. For example, I am certain that a state law that barred anyone within its borders from ever wearing the color blue - with no explanation or justification - would be struck down as unconstitutional. You won't find anything in the United States Constitution about the rights of individuals to have some degree of liberty in choosing the color of their attire, but it's unimaginable that the courts would allow such a law to stand.

Similarly, a state law that requires a worthless medical procedure to be performed before an abortion can take place - with no valid state interest in doing so - would fail. Note that a "valid interest" is NOT "We want to cause women to delay getting their abortions", since the Supreme Court has already ruled that simply passing laws to erect barriers to abortion - without some other valid purpose - is unconstitutional. So the medical procedure MUST have some valid purpose beyond causing a delay. But if the medical procedure is worthless, by definition it has no valid purpose.

And note that medical procedures have inherent risks. Sonograms are among the safest of medical procedures, but they are not risk-free. So the state would be causing the woman to expose herself to a potentially harmful - and still worthless - procedure, still with no valid purpose.

According to you, laws that arbitrarily make orange juice illegal, require everyone to keep a pet goldfish, bar writers from using word-processing software, or force everyone to sleep in the bedroom would merely be stupid. You're wrong. Such laws would also be unconstitutional.
 
surprises me that these people actually think that the women are somehow unaware of what is going on....thats why it never has an emotional toll on anyone...... 😉
 
Also, a state can certainly constitutionally enact STUPID laws - laws that the state believes will accomplish some desired end but which in fact do the opposite. For example, it seems obvious to many that anti-drug laws actually cause more harm to society than good, but the laws are in fact Constitutional. So I agree that the fact that a law is stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional.

But states cannot pass laws that restrict liberty without some perceived (and sufficiently important) interest in doing so. For example, I am certain that a state law that barred anyone within its borders from ever wearing the color blue - with no explanation or justification - would be struck down as unconstitutional. You won't find anything in the United States Constitution about the rights of individuals to have some degree of liberty in choosing the color of their attire, but it's unimaginable that the courts would allow such a law to stand.
Click to expand...

I see from your profile that you're from Alberta Canada, so maybe you're used to how things work under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But here, typically stupid laws often cannot be thrown out as unconstitutional because either plantiffs lack standing (the law hasn't created an "injury" for them) or there's not a whole lot of remedy to seek from a court. There's plenty of laws out there that are stupid and on the books for that very reason, with no reasonable chance of judicial review:

link

Here's a few samples 🙂

This one seems to be a law in every state for some reason: A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.

Alabama - Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.

Arizona - You may not have more than two dildos in a house.

Blythe, CA - You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

Chico, CA - Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.

San Francisco, CA - It is illegal to wipe one's car with used underwear.

Indiana - The value of Pi is 4, and not 3.1415.

New Jersey - It is against the law for a man to knit during the fishing season.

Pennsylvania - Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. If the horses appear skittish, the motorist must take his car apart, piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes.

Danville, PA - All fire hydrants must be checked one hour before all fires.

and my favorite: Waynesboro, Virginia - It is illegal for a woman to drive a car up Main Street unless her husband is walking in front of the car waving a red flag. (repealed unfortunately) 🙂
 
Until roe gets over turned this law will be ruled unconstitutionally because it creates an undue burdon on a preson using their rights.
 
Actually, I live in Maryland. I can't imagine how "Alberta" got set.

Most laws that no longer have any (or a sufficiently) valid purpose and/or which are found to be unconstitutional remain on the books unenforced (for example, most state laws banning abortion weren't removed after Roe-v-Wade). And I'll bet that's the case with many of the laws you cited.

But not all of them. Some of those laws probably still have a useful purpose.

What's kind of fun is to imagine the rationales that prompted the passage of those laws. For example, I'll bet that that Danville, PA, fire hydrant law actually refers to intentionally-set fires (like bonfires or brush-clearing fires).
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This idea that pro-choicers are all heartless monsters doesn't hold up, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Who would have thought?

Funny how lefties make a fuss over a small ultrasound.
Click to expand...
You have just broken new ground. Making someone undergo a medical procedure? The single MOST disgusting thing anyone could ever advocate. If you can make a person undergo one test you can make them undergo ANY test.
Ask Dr. Mengele.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top