Hell once these fossils get their way we should enact laws that force people to be organ donors just like you suggest, make them put their money where their mouth is.
While the proponents are referring to it as a "fetal heartbeat bill" the actual language refers to "embryonic or fetal cardiac activity". One of the reasons for this is that cardiac activity is not the same as an actual heartbeat. In fact a fetus doesn't develop what we consider a heart until about 20 weeks, but there is cardiac activity earlier than that.
Personally as a Georgia resident I think we should tackle Governor Kemp and remove one of his kidneys to give to a patient in need of a transplant. I wonder how he'd feel about removal of bodily autonomy for the purpose of saving a life after that.
"It will also save money. Win-win for everyone."Well thank god. Looks like Ohio GOP lawmakers caught wind of this story and the fact this child could end up being able to have an abortion due to her health being at risk.
They are now proposing banning all insurance companies from covering the cost. Bless their hearts.
https://local12.com/news/local/ohio...ng-for-abortions-limit-birth-control-coverage
If I were a lawmaker I'd introduce a mandatory organ donator bill that requires blood testing for organ donation matching and state control over organ donation of replaceable organs if the recipient's life is in danger. It would never have a chance of passing, but it would be great to see all the Republicans vote against something like it since they're all cool with not letting women control their own medical decisions.Hell once these fossils get their way we should enact laws that force people to be organ donors just like you suggest, make them put their money where their mouth is.
The GA law requires a police report to be filed for an exemption for rape/incest. So tell me, how would someone like the 11 year old in OH ever go file a police report concerning incest? Don't you think that's a bit of a far fetched scenario?
well shit lucky for this rape victim that she is just young enough that she might be spared having to endure carrying a child to term.
So what age does the rape victim have to be to make this law acceptable?
I guess some babies are innocent victims being murdered and some aren't.Never said it was acceptable, and believe it or not I'm pro-choice, albeit for pragmatic reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that you guys are working yourselves into a frenzy because some journalist started speculating about an impossible situation and you uncritically lapped it up. Discuss the bills, that's fine, but don't go spreading fake news. No one is going to force this 11 year old to carry her pregnancy to term.
Just curious what is the appropriate age to force a child or minor impregnated by rape to carry to term?Never said it was acceptable, and believe it or not I'm pro-choice, albeit for pragmatic reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that you guys are working yourselves into a frenzy because some journalist started speculating about an impossible situation and you uncritically lapped it up. Discuss the bills, that's fine, but don't go spreading fake news. No one is going to force this 11 year old to carry her pregnancy to term.
Where'd you get your medical degree? I ask as I just want to determine how you can be 100% sure, in the face of all that the GOP is trying to do to prevent any kind of abortion being legally obtained, that any and all 11 year olds, well possibly 12 by the time she would be due would be deemed to have their life at risk without question.Never said it was acceptable, and believe it or not I'm pro-choice, albeit for pragmatic reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that you guys are working yourselves into a frenzy because some journalist started speculating about an impossible situation and you uncritically lapped it up. Discuss the bills, that's fine, but don't go spreading fake news. No one is going to force this 11 year old to carry her pregnancy to term.
I guess some babies are innocent victims being murdered and some aren't.
Problem is, all children brought to term carry risk to the mother. Based on that argument every child terminated prior to birth is self defense. We can either quibble about how risky the proposition is and how that relates to the legalese of self defense vs homicide, or accept that it's a flawed argument from the outset.There is likely to be substantial disagreement on what makes an abortion justified and therefore not murder. The easy one is when the mother's life is in danger, which parallels nicely to self-defense. Rape, incest, and underage mother arguments for justification would be far more contested but would likely have at least some supporters within the anti-abortion crowd.
Don't forget child support for the next 18 years, 529 fund contributions for the kid, and if the mother is young enough additional alimony so that the woman can go to college and not be stuck forever in a poverty cycle.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.
Problem is, all children brought to term carry risk to the mother. Based on that argument every child terminated prior to birth is self defense. We can either quibble about how risky the proposition is and how that relates to the legalese of self defense vs homicide, or accept that it's a flawed argument from the outset.
The barrier for 'reasonable fear of serious bodily injury' depends heavily on what state you're in, what your skin color is, and whether or not you're a police officer. I suppose we could bestow the same idiosyncrasies on pregnant women as well. Shall we continue negotiating over what a woman should be permitted to decide about her body?I edited it to "when there is a substantial risk to the mother's life" which is closer to what the legal standard would actually be, given that self-defense requires a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Doctors and the law are able to distinguish between normal pregnancies and those with a heightened risk to the life of the mother.
The barrier for 'reasonable fear of serious bodily injury' depends heavily on what state you're in, what your skin color is, and whether or not you're a police officer. I suppose we could bestow the same idiosyncrasies on pregnant women as well. Shall we continue negotiating over what a woman should be permitted to decide about her body?
I am SO going to start using this argument.Problem is, all children brought to term carry risk to the mother. Based on that argument every child terminated prior to birth is self defense. We can either quibble about how risky the proposition is and how that relates to the legalese of self defense vs homicide, or accept that it's a flawed argument from the outset.
I am SO going to start using this argument.
That man and the Republicans.
Ironically if the girl were the daughter of a prominent Republican the abortion would have already happened.
What makes pro-lifers think they know what's best for the rest of the nation and have the right to insist that everyone else MUST live their lives as they do?
Someone asked earlier about just going to another state. Georgia has a solution to that too.
Good god.