Georgia abortion law

Political and religious discussions go here. Tread lightly.
Locked
User avatar
33anda3rd
Replies Authoritatively
Posts: 8324
Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by 33anda3rd »

MAGA wrote:“MAGA pussies”
“Exterminate Republicans”
“Kill them all.”

THAT talk is okay because it fits your personal agenda.

Later.
Bye, homie.
User avatar
Swirls
gone fission
Posts: 8159
Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by Swirls »

wellbye.gif
User avatar
pioneer98
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20625
Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Location: Low A Minors

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by pioneer98 »

MAGA wrote:Yes, and again, just because it isn’t common doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be put forth as a question.

The question stands.
I didn't say it was not common, I said it NEVER happens. The burden of proof is on you to go track down an example where a woman just decided at 8 months she wanted an abortion for the hell of it and there were no complicating factors like risk to her own life involved.
User avatar
wart57
just can't quit you.
Posts: 24946
Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Location: Lost

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by wart57 »

I know I said I was out....but.

In the Geddy post - the person who is refusing to give a bone marrow or some such thing is certainly within their rights. No matter the moral issues.

Just a few questions.

Say the person refusing to help is directly responsible for the person having cancer? Say, they were the reason, through negligence, or accident, for that person being exposed to the carcinogen that caused the cancer. I think they can't be forced to give up their body autonomy to help this person, but they can be forced to give up their freedom, financial freedom, and even their future.

Also, in the bodily autonomy scenario, after the person refuses to donate anything to help save this other person, which is their right, are they then allowed to hire someone to go to that person's house and kill them? Or more graphically and I will spoiler this so as not to force anyone to read something that might be offensive to them
[SHOW]
dismember that person, drag their remains out of the house and then throw them in the garbage or sell off their parts for money?
Sorry if this is too blunt for some.
User avatar
G. Keenan
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
Posts: 21728
Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by G. Keenan »

wart57 wrote:I know I said I was out....but.

In the Geddy post - the person who is refusing to give a bone marrow or some such thing is certainly within their rights. No matter the moral issues.

Just a few questions.

Say the person refusing to help is directly responsible for the person having cancer? Say, they were the reason, through negligence, or accident, for that person being exposed to the carcinogen that caused the cancer. I think they can't be forced to give up their body autonomy to help this person, but they can be forced to give up their freedom, financial freedom, and even their future.

Also, in the bodily autonomy scenario, after the person refuses to donate anything to help save this other person, which is their right, are they then allowed to hire someone to go to that person's house and kill them? Or more graphically and I will spoiler this so as not to force anyone to read something that might be offensive to them
[SHOW]
dismember that person, drag their remains out of the house and then throw them in the garbage or sell off their parts for money?
Sorry if this is too blunt for some.
I agree with you wart that the bone marrow donation analogy has some flaws. Here's where I think the problem lies. A woman is 100% definitely a person, right? This cannot be disputed by reasonable people. The fetus is not 100% definitely a person. That is not settled by science. That is not settled by philosophy. That is not even settled by religion. It is merely the sincere belief of some people, like yourself, which I respect. I can see how that belief is compelling, and once adopted, banning abortion seems logical and a woman's right to choose is beside the point. Hence why the debate and state laws these days has moved towards the "personhood" of the fetus. If that is your belief, none of the other conversations circling this topic have any significance. It doesn't matter if a woman needs to weigh career vs. motherhood -- not her decision because abortion is murder. It doesn't matter if she is raped -- two wrongs don't make a right.

But, not everyone agrees on this. Absent a social consensus that a fetus is a person, informed by science, religion, philosophy, common sense or whatever -- on whose side should the law come down? On the side of the woman and her autonomy, who everyone agrees is a person? Or on the side of the fetus, for whom there is no such universal consensus?

I get the perceived morality of the pro-choice position, but our legal system is not based on what some people feel to be moral.
User avatar
Tim
Consider him admonished
Posts: 8269
Joined: March 25 15, 9:59 am
Location: Charleston, SC via Arkansas

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by Tim »

G. Keenan wrote: but our legal system is not based on what some people feel to be moral.
Really?
User avatar
pioneer98
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20625
Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Location: Low A Minors

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by pioneer98 »

Colorado offered free birth control — and teen abortions fell by 42 percent

Here's yet another angle where the conservative stance on abortion falls apart. Another way to reduce the number of abortions is to increase funding for other kinds of birth control. Not saying the conservatives on this board feel this way, but most conservatives in this country oppose ALL forms of birth control and not just abortion. Birth control funding is one of the first things Republicans slash when they take office. Funding other kinds of birth control is the best of both worlds - fewer abortions and women still keep their right to choose. So, again, conservatives' problem is not really with abortion. Their problem is they don't want women to have this particular freedom.
Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 19893
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by Socnorb11 »

pioneer98 wrote:
MAGA wrote:Yes, and again, just because it isn’t common doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be put forth as a question.

The question stands.
I didn't say it was not common, I said it NEVER happens. The burden of proof is on you to go track down an example where a woman just decided at 8 months she wanted an abortion for the hell of it and there were no complicating factors like risk to her own life involved.

The point is that if you set THAT as the standard, then you have to assume worst-case scenario. You have to have a standard in order to legislate. What is it? Heartbeat? 3 months? 8 months? Birth?

The bone marrow donator isn't wishing or declaring death on anyone. They are simply choosing not to be a donor, and probably hoping that someone else steps in.
User avatar
wart57
just can't quit you.
Posts: 24946
Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Location: Lost

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by wart57 »

pioneer98 wrote:Colorado offered free birth control — and teen abortions fell by 42 percent

Here's yet another angle where the conservative stance on abortion falls apart. Another way to reduce the number of abortions is to increase funding for other kinds of birth control. Not saying the conservatives on this board feel this way, but most conservatives in this country oppose ALL forms of birth control and not just abortion. Birth control funding is one of the first things Republicans slash when they take office. Funding other kinds of birth control is the best of both worlds - fewer abortions and women still keep their right to choose. So, again, conservatives' problem is not really with abortion. Their problem is they don't want women to have this particular freedom.
Some conservatives. I think it is asinine to cut funding and curtail access to contraceptives. People want to have sex, it is not some perverse thing meant only for procreation. Preventing conception should be a primary concern of the pro-life folks.
Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 19893
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Georgia abortion law

Post by Socnorb11 »

wart57 wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:Colorado offered free birth control — and teen abortions fell by 42 percent

Here's yet another angle where the conservative stance on abortion falls apart. Another way to reduce the number of abortions is to increase funding for other kinds of birth control. Not saying the conservatives on this board feel this way, but most conservatives in this country oppose ALL forms of birth control and not just abortion. Birth control funding is one of the first things Republicans slash when they take office. Funding other kinds of birth control is the best of both worlds - fewer abortions and women still keep their right to choose. So, again, conservatives' problem is not really with abortion. Their problem is they don't want women to have this particular freedom.
Some conservatives. I think it is asinine to cut funding and curtail access to contraceptives. People want to have sex, it is not some perverse thing meant only for procreation. Preventing conception should be a primary concern of the pro-life folks.
+++
Locked