You can choose to believe what you want, you wanted a bill to discuss, I showed you it.
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.
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.
the amount of direct medical and pregnancy related expenses of the
187 mother of the unborn child.
In the bill Section 4, part 5 (b).
There is nothing regarding the age of the pregnant female.
(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.
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;
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.
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.
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 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’s Georgia’s bill. Not Ohio where this child is. Ohio’s bill has no such provisions for rape or incest.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.
Wrong state. Try again.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.
(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.
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.
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?".
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?".
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..."
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..."
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.
...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, that's a good one!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.
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
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.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.
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.)
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.
Then maybe you can explain the moral precept of legislating control of an unborn fetus then once it is born refuse any assistance.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..."