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

[Paratus]

Yes, that does tend to be how both the law and medicine work. For example, with normal pregnancies, women generally aren't allowed to schedule a C-section instead of a vaginal birth. But under certain circumstances (such as very large babies, prior C-sections, complications during labor that increase the risk of problems during a vaginal delivery) an exception is made and a woman is allowed to choose to have a C-section.

It wasn't actually my intent to argue over what a woman can choose to do with her body, I just don't like when people use bad arguments to try to demonize people with different fundamental beliefs as irrational hypocrites. That said, we don't allow women to do whatever they want with their bodies. We don't allow them to get third-trimester voluntary abortions, we don't allow them to ingest opiods without a prescription, we don't allow them to schedule voluntary C-sections in normal, first pregnancies two weeks in advance of their projected due date, etc... The argument that we shouldn't restrict woman from choosing what to do with their bodies at all would require some major changes to our society. However, that doesn't mean we should go the other way and say that women should never be allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with hospital births but in my area hospitals are 40+% C-section rates. For all intents and purposes if a woman wants a C section she's getting it. The quote I've heard from doctors are "The only C-sections I get sued for are the ones I didn't do".

This is despite C-sections having much longer recovery times and slightly worse maternal mortality rates.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, that does tend to be how both the law and medicine work. For example, with normal pregnancies, women generally aren't allowed to schedule a C-section instead of a vaginal birth. But under certain circumstances (such as very large babies, prior C-sections, complications during labor that increase the risk of problems during a vaginal delivery) an exception is made and a woman is allowed to choose to have a C-section.

It wasn't actually my intent to argue over what a woman can choose to do with her body, I just don't like when people use bad arguments to try to demonize people with different fundamental beliefs as irrational hypocrites. That said, we don't allow women to do whatever they want with their bodies. We don't allow them to get third-trimester voluntary abortions, we don't allow them to ingest opiods without a prescription, we don't allow them to schedule voluntary C-sections in normal, first pregnancies two weeks in advance of their projected due date, etc... The argument that we shouldn't restrict woman from choosing what to do with their bodies at all would require some major changes to our society. However, that doesn't mean we should go the other way and say that women should never be allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Aside from the third-trimester abortion, the other things you listed aside from third-trimester abortions are restricted due to it causing harm to the person though. We generally restrict activities that can cause harm to others, followed by activities that can cause harm to self.

When people's fundamental beliefs interfere with the health, well-being, and general freedoms of others, I absolutely support them being demonized and exiled from society. Why should one group of people decide the fates of others based on their personal beliefs? Why does that get accepted as normal?

 

[dainthomas]

Amazing. So here comes another Underground Railroad?

Great thinking, brainless shitstain conservatives! ....lol, I just don't understand why republicans absolutely hate the USA so much.

They don't hate the USA, they just hate the parts that aren't a Christian theocracy under their version of Sharia law.

 

[dank69]

That's not irrational or inconsistent. Assuming you believe a fetus is a full-fledged human with a right to life, all abortions would be homicides. However, not all homicides are murder, so it is logically possible for not all abortions to be murder.

There is likely to be substantial disagreement on what makes an abortion justified and therefore not murder. The easy one is when there is a substantial risk to the mother's life, 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.

That's why I used the term murder instead of homicide. That is the term they use in order to demonize everyone who supports the right to choose.

 

[Cozarkian]

Again I ask, why can't these pro-life folks do what they think is best for themselves and leave everyone else alone to think what's best for their own interests (within the present laws of the land, of course)?

Roe v. Wade is settled law that allows for what I just mentioned. But no, pro-lifers have a compulsion to require that EVERYONE MUST COMPLY with their ideology whether they (pro-choice) have the constitutional right to or not.

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?

So maybe they get their way and Roe v. Wade gets overturned. What's next on their hit list that they can ram down the throats of their fellow uncooperative Americans?

It used to be legal to rape your wife, but fortunately, some people were compelled to required that EVERYONE MUST COMPLY with their ideology and it is now illegal to do so. We build society by setting rules that everyone must follow whether their ideology agrees with those rules or not. There is nothing inherently wrong with believing that the constitutional right to life begins at conception and should take precedence over the constitutional right to privacy (and liberty with regard to one's own body), even if the current case law disagrees. Also, case law can be overturned and in our system the only way to get standing to challenge an existing case like Roe v. Wade is to pass a new law that violates it.

These heart-beat laws are bad and not the best way to go about trying to change precedent (they could come up with less drastic laws to do so), but the problem isn't that pro-life folks are trying to enforce their ideology on others, the problem lies primarily in how they are going about it. Also, while it isn't inherently wrong to try to enforce one's own ideology on society, that doesn't mean it is inherently right to do so. For example, I don't think high school kids should be trick-or-treating without costumes, but I wouldn't try to pass a law prohibiting such behavior. I tend to agree with your sentiment that the the no-abortion ever ideology is one that shouldn't be pushed on all of society, but I that's probably because I don't share that ideology so I don't feel the same passion that those who hold it do.

 

[Cozarkian]

That's why I used the term murder instead of homicide. That is the term they use in order to demonize everyone who supports the right to choose.

Substance over form. For those arguing that abortion is murder except under <these specific circumstances>, they are in fact arguing that <abortion under these specific circumstances> is justifiable homicide, whether they use those words or not.

 

[HomerJS]

Substance over form. For those arguing that abortion is murder except under <these specific circumstances>, they are in fact arguing that <abortion under these specific circumstances> is justifiable homicide, whether they use those words or not.

To add to Republican hypocrisy they claim a fertilized egg is a person. Why don't they allow women to claim an additional tax deduction for a dependent?

 

[Cozarkian]

To add to Republican hypocrisy they claim a fertilized egg is a person. Why don't they allow women to claim an additional tax deduction for a dependent?

LOL, that's not bad. Based on the theory, the tax code should be amended to allow a child to be claimed as a dependent during the year of conception rather than the year born, but it is reasonable to focus on trying to pass the anti-abortion laws before addressing the tax code. If a no-abortion law was passed and its supporters subsequently voted against a tax amendment law, that would be hypocritical (barring a rationale explanation). However, until then, it is reasonable to take the position of "The law should recognize the right of life begins at conception, but until it does, the law should not treat life as beginning at conception for tax purposes."

 

[dawp]

LOL, that's not bad. Based on the theory, the tax code should be amended to allow a child to be claimed as a dependent during the year of conception rather than the year born, but it is reasonable to focus on trying to pass the anti-abortion laws before addressing the tax code. If a no-abortion law was passed and its supporters subsequently voted against a tax amendment law, that would be hypocritical (barring a rationale explanation). However, until then, it is reasonable to take the position of "The law should recognize the right of life begins at conception, but until it does, the law should not treat life as beginning at conception for tax purposes."

just think of the deductions for a frozen embryo, cost of keeping it frozen, storage, maintenance of the facility, and I'm sure there can be other expenses.

 

[sandorski]

Alabama has a response to Ohio and Georgia...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1126525787451154432

WTF shit. How does one even entertain such a thing, nevermind actually attempting to do it. It is so blatantly fucktarded, why even bother with procedure? Just show up in the morning and announce the new Laws of the Land you typed up last night after a bottle of bourbon.

Disclaimer: All questions rhetorical, my brain just can't fathom what it just saw.....it seems clear that there is widespread disregard to any kind of Will of the People and/or respect for Liberty within the Republican party. If there was any point in History wherein Liberals should be concerned about the future, it is now. The possibility that this ends up in violence has increased dramatically, a Liberal/Conservative Civil War2 is not out of the question. Hell, some violence has already begun, just isolated guys attempting to be the "Hero" though.

 

[sandorski]

Intelligent Humans: Man, that "Handmade's Tale" sure is a horrifying depiction of a dystopian reality when fundamentalist evangelical christian extremists violently overthrow the free democracy of the USA in an attempt to control and subjugate women for the sole purpose of maintaining strict birthing property for the chosen elites within their religio-fascist cult. That can never happen here!

Republicans: Hold my beer.

It is a Textbook. It sits on the shelf next to 1984.

 

[ElFenix]

Classic GOP, a government so small it can fit in your vagina.

i am stealing this line

 

[dainthomas]

just think of the deductions for a frozen embryo, cost of keeping it frozen, storage, maintenance of the facility, and I'm sure there can be other expenses.

And if an embryo is a child, then one could simply keep it frozen indefinitely to keep those child tax credits rolling in.

 

[trenchfoot]

It used to be legal to rape your wife, but fortunately, some people were compelled to required that EVERYONE MUST COMPLY with their ideology and it is now illegal to do so. We build society by setting rules that everyone must follow whether their ideology agrees with those rules or not. There is nothing inherently wrong with believing that the constitutional right to life begins at conception and should take precedence over the constitutional right to privacy (and liberty with regard to one's own body), even if the current case law disagrees. Also, case law can be overturned and in our system the only way to get standing to challenge an existing case like Roe v. Wade is to pass a new law that violates it.

These heart-beat laws are bad and not the best way to go about trying to change precedent (they could come up with less drastic laws to do so), but the problem isn't that pro-life folks are trying to enforce their ideology on others, the problem lies primarily in how they are going about it. Also, while it isn't inherently wrong to try to enforce one's own ideology on society, that doesn't mean it is inherently right to do so. For example, I don't think high school kids should be trick-or-treating without costumes, but I wouldn't try to pass a law prohibiting such behavior. I tend to agree with your sentiment that the the no-abortion ever ideology is one that shouldn't be pushed on all of society, but I that's probably because I don't share that ideology so I don't feel the same passion that those who hold it do.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with pro-lifers feeling and believing the way they do about abortion. What I take exception to is their efforts to force everyone else to adhere to their ideological tenets, be they religiously influenced or not. Am I wrong to think that our Constitution protects us from having that happen? I don't think so in that what the pro-lifers are attempting to do is regressive in nature. The issue of abortion has already been settled by the highest court in the land yet the religious right thinks it needs to be reversed. Funny that many of them think Citizen's United is just fine with them.

Is it tyranny over the minority that I'm concerned about? Seeing as if I understand that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be adherents to some religious entity or another, that may be the case.

Is it that most if not all religions are inflexible and resistant to the inevitable changes that we experience as our nation's morals and ethics continuously evolves? Well yeah, in some ways. But that's not to say that what Donald Trump has done to our views on morals and ethics is part and parcel of how we as a nation have evolved into. It's clearly more of an abomination outside of the norm. Yet many of the religious right think it's perfectly fine for him to be that way simply because it's a convenient thing for both Trump and the religious right to have as a condition of their alliance with each other. Go figure that one out ethics/morals/religiosity-wise.

Double standards not withstanding, being seen as hypocrites is not a problem with them it seems.

Gay marriage is now legalized just as abortions were years ago and both are protected by law, yet some folks think their religious beliefs should take precedence over these laws (rights) and should therefore be abolished in order to align with their beliefs.

I simply don't agree that it's OK to do that.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Classic GOP, a government so small it can fit in your vagina.

i am stealing this line

A more accurate line would be:

"A government just small enough to grab a woman by her pussy."

 

[kage69]

To add to Republican hypocrisy they claim a fertilized egg is a person. Why don't they allow women to claim an additional tax deduction for a dependent?

Pretty much what I always ask the outspoken anti-choice types who maintain cells are people.

Why no SS# for that zygote? For legal documents what do you put down for eye color, weight, height? What kind of certificate comes before a birth certificate? Do you still deserve the tax break if she miscarriages? Who gets charged with manslaughter in the event of miscarriage?

Social authoritarians aren't known for intelligence or empathy, and this issue is a great example of why.

 

[kage69]

A more accurate line would be:

"A government just small enough to grab a woman by her pussy."

'When they're evangelical they let you.'

 

[Cozarkian]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with hospital births but in my area hospitals are 40+% C-section rates. For all intents and purposes if a woman wants a C section she's getting it. The quote I've heard from doctors are "The only C-sections I get sued for are the ones I didn't do".

This is despite C-sections having much longer recovery times and slightly worse maternal mortality rates.

Just because C-sections may be common doesn't change the fact that a woman in her first pregnancy can't simply call your doctor and say I want to schedule a C-section three days before my estimated due date.

Aside from the third-trimester abortion, the other things you listed aside from third-trimester abortions are restricted due to it causing harm to the person though. We generally restrict activities that can cause harm to others, followed by activities that can cause harm to self.

When people's fundamental beliefs interfere with the health, well-being, and general freedoms of others, I absolutely support them being demonized and exiled from society. Why should one group of people decide the fates of others based on their personal beliefs? Why does that get accepted as normal?

The point still stands, an argument of an absolute right to choose is simply not consistent with other laws. You provide two arguments for when we restrict the right to control your own body. One is when it is harmful to one's self. Interestingly, many people actually disagree that we should do that. Even some people that support things such as anti-drug laws might be relying on other justifications. For example, a person might not care that a drug addict is killing him or herself, but might justify banning addictive drugs because addiction has a tendency to cause addicts to commit crimes to get money to support their addictions, which harms others.

The second reason you provided, harming others, is precisely why pro-lifers want to ban abortion. They believe abortion deprives a living human of its right to life, because they believe that a fertilized egg is a human with the exact same right to life as you and I. They also tend to value the right to life above all other rights. The established law disagrees. The law says the right to life vests only when a fetus is viable, but if you truly believe that a fertilized egg is a full human being with a full right to life, it makes sense to want to have a complete ban on abortion. People that don't want complete bans either don't consider the unborn to be humans until a later point in the process or they have a different belief with how the right to life should be balanced against other rights (like a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body).

 

[Cozarkian]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with pro-lifers feeling and believing the way they do about abortion. What I take exception to is their efforts to force everyone else to adhere to their ideological tenets, be they religiously influenced or not. Am I wrong to think that our Constitution protects us from having that happen?

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.

I don't think so in that what the pro-lifers are attempting to do is regressive in nature.

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 abortion has already been settled by the highest court in the land yet the religious right thinks it needs to be reversed.

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.

Gay marriage is now legalized just as abortions were years ago and both are protected by law, yet some folks think their religious beliefs should take precedence over these laws (rights) and should therefore be abolished in order to align with their beliefs.

I simply don't agree that it's OK to do that.

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.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

With whom is their debate? Philosophers?

The law already has an answer, and it's at the moment of birth. Before that is pre-life and no rights exist for that state... well, except those of the parent that's directly dealing with the gestation.

 

[VRAMdemon]

This law seems to be part of a coordinated legal strategy across multiple states in an effort to force a Supreme Court case. But there are intentions beyond strictly legal considerations at work here.

One is to energize the religious right. After all, it's the theocrats who voted Trump-Pence into power, and they have been rewarded with two very conservative justices, and may very well be rewarded with a third at some point in the near future if Ginsburg goes down. Moreover, the Republicans are currently in the process of trying to radically remake the district and circuit courts, and given more time, that transformation will be complete, and they will have an impact on the courts for decades, regardless of whether a Democrat becomes president and regardless if they control Congress.

The other thing this law accomplishes is ascribing personhood to fetuses. If fetuses are legal persons, then they could get the rights to life, liberty, etc., that the rest of us get. If the mother dies in childbirth, should the baby that killed her be tried? And if the fetus gets to use a woman's body without her permission, shouldn't other people have the same right? Should marital rape be legal, or even recognized as possible? The mother could have caused the miscarriage that killed the baby by having a drink, drinking coffee, taking an aspirin, or "thinking bad thoughts." What if a woman miscarriages before she even knows she's pregnant.

The woman may have a right to privacy (which is where I think the rights in Roe came from), but those may be overcome by the fetuses right to life. Suddenly, the fetus has equal protection rights and so on, and, poof, abortion is illegal in the US.

 

[interchange]

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.

 

[ch33zw1z]

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.

AL.com: If you’re going to pass this abortion bill, Alabama senators, put your names on it.
https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/if-...ll-alabama-senators-put-your-names-on-it.html

Alabama, doesn't want to include exceptions for rape or incest because they outright admit they want Roe v Wade gone. So yea, your impossible scenario is just your feels, and fuck 'em. If they get their way, every pregnant 11 year old rape victim will be having that baby. Your head in the sand isn't the same as fake news bruh.

 

[HurleyBird]

Alabama, doesn't want to include exceptions for rape or incest because they outright admit they want Roe v Wade gone. So yea, your impossible scenario is just your feels, and fuck 'em. If they get their way, every pregnant 11 year old rape victim will having that baby. Your head in the sand isn't the same as fake news bruh.

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.

 

[Meghan54]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the laws as good. They suck. I'm pro-choice.

What I am doing is calling out the idea that the purpose of pro-life legislation is to legitimize rape.

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.