Those heartbeat laws (abortion).... yeah this is what happens.

[ch33zw1z]

Straw man. I never made the claim that no one would bar her from an abortion because she's the victim of rape. Nor does Roe v. Wade (privacy) even come into consideration. Carrying a pregnancy to term is substantially life threatening for an 11 year old. Medical necessity is always an exception.

You can choose to believe what you want, you wanted a bill to discuss, I showed you it.

 

[VRAMdemon]

In the bill Section 4, part 5 (b).

No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if the probable gestational age of the an unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to have a detectable human heartbeat except when:
...
5 (b)(2) The probable gestational age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or less and the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest in which an official police report has been filed alleging the offense of rape or incest.

There is nothing regarding the age of the pregnant female.

Also note this applies only to females who report the assault to the cops. So a woman is raped by a popular college football player and too scared of possible repercussions to report it to the cops? Is she SOL?

The law does allow exceptions for when the life of the mother is at stake or the fetus is not viable, but not for the cases in which the woman is suicidal. So she can't have an abortion, but if a woman kills herself and therefore the fetus - two natural persons dead - apparently that's preferable to that woman having an abortion.

Fathers will pay child support for embryos/fetuses: Section 5 of the bill amends current Georgia law to include embryos/fetuses, though the law restricts such support to:

the amount of direct medical and pregnancy related expenses of the
187 mother of the unborn child.

Of course, paternity can't be determined until after birth.

 

[HurleyBird]

In the bill Section 4, part 5 (b).
There is nothing regarding the age of the pregnant female.

Literally a few lines above that:

(3) 'Medical emergency' means a condition in which an abortion is necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. No such greater risk shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the pregnant woman or that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.

and later

No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if the probable gestational age of an unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to have a detectable human heartbeat except when: A physician determines, in reasonable medical judgment, that a medical emergency exists;

Abortion stays legal when deemed medically necessary. The bill just proscribes mental health concerns from falling under that umbrella.

So it looks like the narrative that this 11 year old is in danger of being forced to carry her pregnancy to term is indeed fake news.

 

[interchange]

I tend to fall into the camp that believes all this anti-abortion crap from the male conservative side is just another way to punish the floozies that allow themselves to get knocked up.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that, but something along those lines certainly seems to fit for many people.

 

[Paratus]

Yes, you are wrong. The Constitution does not protect us from people trying to change the law based on their ideological tenets. In fact, it does the exact opposite by protecting the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court tries to avoid overturning its prior decisions and gives them "precedent" in order to establish confidence in the law, but changes can and do happen.



Who decides it is regressive? Is the standard whether it expands or restricts rights? By that definition allowing gay marriage is progressive because it expands the rights of gays. But does an anti-abortion law progress the right of the pregnant woman or does it progress the right of the unborn? And is expansion of right even a good definition? The Japanese are perfectly fine with sexualizing under age girls in ways that would be illegal child porn in the U.S. If a bunch of Japanese immigrants petitioned to expand their rights by increasing access to child porn, is that progressive?

And what about Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Originally the U.S. Supreme Court only outlawed abortions in the third trimester. Then the court came along and changed the prohibition to after the child was viable, which took away a couple of weeks to get an abortion. Was that progressive or regressive?

The issue of segregation was settled by the highest court in the land yet the civil rights activities thought it needed to be reversed. The Supreme Court decisions can be overturned, and sometimes they need to be.



On gay marriage I will absolutely agree with you. Yes, the religious have a right to continue to challenge the law, but they really shouldn't. With abortion if the religious are correct about when human life begins and the importance of human life, then abortions are violating an innocent human's rights, but with gay marriage there is no victim, just two consenting adults.

If the religious are correct about when a human life begins and the importance of human life then it is impossible to procreate without recklessly endangering a child. And unless you get pregnant the very first month of trying most will end up with a dead child.

Depending on the age of the parents fertilized eggs spontaneously abort or miscarry 30-70% of the time resulting in the child’s death.

So virtually every parent has committed reckless endangerment and most have committed involuntary manslaughter.

So I’m going with: no the religious are not right about when life starts.

 

[ivwshane]

I’m thinking if we go down this path that getting a woman pregnant who didn’t want to be would be a felony. (I’m not even talking rape here. I’m talking the husband got drunk and forgot a condom).

Make it punishable by mandatory surgical sterilization with a fine equal to the cost of the surgery.

The surgery would be done in prison where the man would be kept until the surgery was complete.

I figure once enough of these irresponsible guys are clipped it will make a vas deferens in the number of involuntarily pregnant women.

Or we could keep the government out of these personal issues.

I think this is a really good idea. If a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, the male involved must be castrated and jailed. Men that rape women and get them pregnant must get the death penalty.

I mean if we are going jail women for what they do to their own bodies it only makes sense to hold the male to the same standards.

 

[DarthKyrie]

I think maybe someone said it here, but I'll paraphrase: "Small government is best, and only works when it's small enough to fit in, and control, a vagina."

That would be me. A government so small it can fit in your vagina. It's a saying that's been around for 20 years or so.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

In the bill Section 4, part 5 (b).



There is nothing regarding the age of the pregnant female.

Also note this applies only to females who report the assault to the cops. So a woman is raped by a popular college football player and too scared of possible repercussions to report it to the cops? Is she SOL?

The law does allow exceptions for when the life of the mother is at stake or the fetus is not viable, but not for the cases in which the woman is suicidal. So she can't have an abortion, but if a woman kills herself and therefore the fetus - two natural persons dead - apparently that's preferable to that woman having an abortion.

Fathers will pay child support for embryos/fetuses: Section 5 of the bill amends current Georgia law to include embryos/fetuses, though the law restricts such support to:



Of course, paternity can't be determined until after birth.

That’s Georgia’s bill. Not Ohio where this child is. Ohio’s bill has no such provisions for rape or incest.

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Literally a few lines above that:



and later



Abortion stays legal when deemed medically necessary. The bill just proscribes mental health concerns from falling under that umbrella.

So it looks like the narrative that this 11 year old is in danger of being forced to carry her pregnancy to term is indeed fake news.

Wrong state. Try again.

 

[HurleyBird]

Wrong state. Try again.

Not my fault that the guy linked the wrong document, but sure. Up at the top:

(2) "Medical necessity" means a medical condition of a pregnant woman that, in the reasonable judgment of the physician who is attending the woman, so complicates the pregnancy that it necessitates the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.

 

[trenchfoot]

Yes, you are wrong. The Constitution does not protect us from people trying to change the law based on their ideological tenets. In fact, it does the exact opposite by protecting the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court tries to avoid overturning its prior decisions and gives them "precedent" in order to establish confidence in the law, but changes can and do happen.



Who decides it is regressive? Is the standard whether it expands or restricts rights? By that definition allowing gay marriage is progressive because it expands the rights of gays. But does an anti-abortion law progress the right of the pregnant woman or does it progress the right of the unborn? And is expansion of right even a good definition? The Japanese are perfectly fine with sexualizing under age girls in ways that would be illegal child porn in the U.S. If a bunch of Japanese immigrants petitioned to expand their rights by increasing access to child porn, is that progressive?

And what about Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Originally the U.S. Supreme Court only outlawed abortions in the third trimester. Then the court came along and changed the prohibition to after the child was viable, which took away a couple of weeks to get an abortion. Was that progressive or regressive?

The issue of segregation was settled by the highest court in the land yet the civil rights activities thought it needed to be reversed. The Supreme Court decisions can be overturned, and sometimes they need to be.



On gay marriage I will absolutely agree with you. Yes, the religious have a right to continue to challenge the law, but they really shouldn't. With abortion if the religious are correct about when human life begins and the importance of human life, then abortions are violating an innocent human's rights, but with gay marriage there is no victim, just two consenting adults.

Your well reasoned and thoughtful response is much appreciated.

 

[ivwshane]

Why can't politicians run on a platform that says they will fight for your right not to have an abortion?
When voters ask them, "are you anti abortion", they should respond with, "it doesn't matter what I'm for or against but I'll fight for your right to be able to adhere to your own beliefs". When the voter says, "I think abortion is murder, what about you", they should respond, "I will make it illegal for anyone to force you to murder your unborn child".

If they respond, "I don't want anyone to be able to have an abortion", they can respond by saying, "should those that want an abortion have the right to force you to have an abortion? No? Then why do you think you can force them to adhere to your beliefs?".

 

[HurleyBird]

Why can't politicians run on a platform that says they will fight for your right not to have an abortion?
When voters ask them, "are you anti abortion", they should respond with, "it doesn't matter what I'm for or against but I'll fight for your right to be able to adhere to your own beliefs". When the voter says, "I think abortion is murder, what about you", they should respond, "I will make it illegal for anyone to force you to murder your unborn child".

If they respond, "I don't want anyone to be able to have an abortion", they can respond by saying, "should those that want an abortion have the right to force you to have an abortion? No? Then why do you think you can force them to adhere to your beliefs?".

I'm not pro-life, but...

Why can't politicians run on a platform that says they will fight for your right to not own slaves?
When voters ask them, "are you anti slavery", they should respond with, "it doesn't matter what I'm for or against but I'll fight for your right to be able to adhere to your own beliefs". When the voter says, "I think slavery is evil, what about you", they should respond, "I will make it illegal for anyone to force you to own slaves".

If they respond, "I don't want anyone to be able to own slaves", they can respond by saying, "should those that want slaves have the right to force you to not own slaves? No? Then why do you think you can force them to adhere to your beliefs?".

...That's how dumb you sound. It's like you can't grasp that different people can have different moral precepts, and they aren't all the same as yours. Granting the premise that abortion is murder, then saying "Well, you don't need to murder your unborn child but other people can murder theirs" sounds psychopathic. The proper response from a pro-choice perspective is to get down to first principles. Eg. "I don't agree with your assertion that abortion is murder, and here's why..."

 

[sandorski]

I'm not pro-life, but...



...That's how dumb you sound. It's like you can't grasp that different people can have different moral precepts, and they aren't all the same as yours. Granting the premise that abortion is murder, then saying "Well, you don't need to murder your unborn child but other people can murder theirs" sounds psychopathic. The proper response from a pro-choice perspective is to get down to first principles. Eg. "I don't agree with your assertion that abortion is murder, and here's why..."

...and when that doesn't work, you just tell them not to Murder their fetuses if they object to it. This has been debated since before I was born. Roe v Wade properly decided on it, if one values Liberty for All. No going back.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm not pro-life, but...



...That's how dumb you sound. It's like you can't grasp that different people can have different moral precepts, and they aren't all the same as yours. Granting the premise that abortion is murder, then saying "Well, you don't need to murder your unborn child but other people can murder theirs" sounds psychopathic. The proper response from a pro-choice perspective is to get down to first principles. Eg. "I don't agree with your assertion that abortion is murder, and here's why..."

Lol, yea. It's HIM who cant grasp that others may not share the same morals.

Just speak rationally to conservatives guys, thats seems to work! Stop being so mean! Look what you made me do!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Literally a few lines above that:



and later



Abortion stays legal when deemed medically necessary. The bill just proscribes mental health concerns from falling under that umbrella.

So it looks like the narrative that this 11 year old is in danger of being forced to carry her pregnancy to term is indeed fake news.

Except that's not what roe v Wade decided, and your speculating about the health of the mother. If she's healthy to carry the baby full term and deliver, then too bad. You keep repeating yourself, like it makes it correct.

 

[cytg111]

At least tell me that on the opposite end of that scale that they are cutting the members off convicted rapists... It seems fair. Rape. Loose dick.

 

[interchange]

...That's how dumb you sound. It's like you can't grasp that different people can have different moral precepts, and they aren't all the same as yours. Granting the premise that abortion is murder, then saying "Well, you don't need to murder your unborn child but other people can murder theirs" sounds psychopathic. The proper response from a pro-choice perspective is to get down to first principles. Eg. "I don't agree with your assertion that abortion is murder, and here's why..."

It sounds psychopathic, but if it is representative of your actually held beliefs, I don't agree that you should argue in a different manner to avoid how your beliefs sound. Maybe they are psychopathic, in which case exposing them to challenge might lead to recognize that.

But I don't think the stance you boil it down to is accurate to those who hold such a position. I am one of those people. The way I see it, it seems impossible for anyone to have sufficient authority to determine when the products of conception ought to be considered a life independent of the mother. Sure, there are people who feel pretty certain in their stance for various reasons, but it is quite a different matter to think that your certainty should trump another's.

Personally, I am an atheist. I don't have a religious dog in the fight. The universe doesn't care about the collection of matter I possess, you possess, or is possessed within the womb of any woman any differently than any other matter out there. Caring itself is a human concept. These definitions are socially constructed. Sure I am individually compelled to feel that some clumps of cells are human and others aren't, but I don't think what is socialized into me to feel that way ought to apply to others even if I have the power to make it so.

 

[ch33zw1z]

At least tell me that on the opposite end of that scale that they are cutting the members off convicted rapists... It seems fair. Rape. Loose dick.

Lol, that's a good one!

 

[HomerJS]

On a related topic remember if personhood bills make a comeback it would make the most popular forms of birth control illegal because they prevent fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall.

And we all know those fertilized eggs are people /s

 

[ch33zw1z]

On a related topic remember if personhood bills make a comeback it would make the most popular forms of birth control illegal because they prevent fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall.

And we all know those fertilized eggs are people /s

Good, more people we can chastise and look down on after they're born.

Maybe a conservative can stop by to tell us how over population is a problem (which I agree with) and how it's Dems fault for not doing anything

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Not my fault that the guy linked the wrong document, but sure. Up at the top:

Is there some context to the selected part of the bill you posted? I ask as you have yet to show how an 11 or 12 year old would be deemed to have her life at risk under this bill without question and thus not be forced to carry to term.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Is there some context to the selected part of the bill you posted? I ask as you have yet to show how an 11 or 12 year old would be deemed to have her life at risk under this bill without question and thus not be forced to carry to term.

Here's some context, from Roe vs Wade on Wikipedia:

In June 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. In any case, the Texas statute allowed abortion only ”for the purpose of saving the life of the mother”. She attempted to obtain an Illegal abortion, but found that the unauthorized facility had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. (McCorvey would end up giving birth before the case was decided, and the child was put up for adoption.)

HB's leg to stand on was already on the books in TX when Roe vs Wade was going on, and the SCOTUS found the TX law to be unconstitutional.

Let's not forget this little stat:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...n-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

Oh, the unhinged left is executing babies though - Trump

 

[Jaskalas]

Actually, pro-choice positions share the same dilemma. Unless you support abortion up until delivery (which is still a fuzzy boundary actually), you still have to figure out some boundary between when the products of conception deserve protection and when they don't. In that way, I think an absolute pro-life stance actually is the most logically clear, but I also think such a criteria is inappropriate, but at the very least not reasonable to forcibly impose upon others.

Thank you for being logically consistent and not morally reactionary on the subject. It's a refreshing take.

The answer is that there is no good answer for both sides here. There needs to be a compromise on how old a child is before abortion no longer applies - except in matters of medical necessity. Do it early, do it quick. However reprehensible it is, that's a much better outcome than allowing anyone to rip apart a child who is old enough to survive outside the womb.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm not pro-life, but...



...That's how dumb you sound. It's like you can't grasp that different people can have different moral precepts, and they aren't all the same as yours. Granting the premise that abortion is murder, then saying "Well, you don't need to murder your unborn child but other people can murder theirs" sounds psychopathic. The proper response from a pro-choice perspective is to get down to first principles. Eg. "I don't agree with your assertion that abortion is murder, and here's why..."

Then maybe you can explain the moral precept of legislating control of an unborn fetus then once it is born refuse any assistance.

Legislating your morality onto other family decisions got us Terry Schivo