Atlanta Disctrict Attorneys refuse to prosecute women under new abortion law.

ViaCrucis said:

....I think reducing the entire argument to a woman's bodily autonomy without any thought into the bodily autonomy of the fetus is unhelpful and amounts to mostly just rhetoric. But there are numerous factors involved, with a lot of nuances and grey areas....

Click to expand...

The problem / argument reduces to several important points.

#1) Is bodily autonomy. It is a huge factor
#2) Is the concept of personhood
#3) Is "when" personhood is assigned to the fetus
#4) is the fact that the fetus can not survive without the mother until around 5 months in...
#5) Is how much value we place on a human life
#6) Is how much value we place on freedom and liberty

The entire issue is not only complex, it is as grey and murky as a September storm cloud. Some of the above factors loop into other factors (like #1 and #6).

The real issue as I see it, is that whatever logic you use to support your position is logic that must apply to the totality of our legal system. I feel this is where a lot of anti-abortionists don't quite comprehend the unintended consequences of their arguments. If A = B and if B = C then A = C. You can't ignore that or fudge that.

And if you mandate that the State has the authority to compel you to do something with your body that you do not want to do because the State feels it is serving the interest of "the greater good" (no matter how you define that greater good) then you open Pandora's box and unleash unintendend consequences that would completely ruin the very notion and concept of freedom and liberty.

The current state of affairs regarding abortion is more or less the best compromise we are going to get. The concept of "personhood" is one we can't get alignment on, but the vast majority of us feel that does not extend to the fetus until it is theorectically capable of living on its own outside of the womb (around 5-6 months). 99% of abortions happen before that point.

I am ok with abortion up until the concept of personhood applies to the fetus. that becomes a separate argument...

that is the other problem with the abortion argument, a lot of the arguments bleed into one another and you have arguments about arguments about arguments... It is a multidimensional problem...

But in any event, I think we more or less have the right of it.

It should be legal, but there should be a limit on when you can get it, and it seems like a lot of states have drawn the line at the 3rd trimester and most of us are fine with that...

dgiharris said:

The problem / argument reduces to several important points.

#1) Is bodily autonomy. It is a huge factor
#2) Is the concept of personhood
#3) Is "when" personhood is assigned to the fetus
#4) is the fact that the fetus can not survive without the mother until around 5 months in...
#5) Is how much value we place on a human life
#6) Is how much value we place on freedom and liberty

The entire issue is not only complex, it is as grey and murky as a September storm cloud. Some of the above factors loop into other factors (like #1 and #6).

The real issue as I see it, is that whatever logic you use to support your position is logic that must apply to the totality of our legal system. I feel this is where a lot of anti-abortionists don't quite comprehend the unintended consequences of their arguments. If A = B and if B = C then A = C. You can't ignore that or fudge that.

And if you mandate that the State has the authority to compel you to do something with your body that you do not want to do because the State feels it is serving the interest of "the greater good" (no matter how you define that greater good) then you open Pandora's box and unleash unintendend consequences that would completely ruin the very notion and concept of freedom and liberty.

The current state of affairs regarding abortion is more or less the best compromise we are going to get. The concept of "personhood" is one we can't get alignment on, but the vast majority of us feel that does not extend to the fetus until it is theorectically capable of living on its own outside of the womb (around 5-6 months). 99% of abortions happen before that point.

I am ok with abortion up until the concept of personhood applies to the fetus. that becomes a separate argument...

that is the other problem with the abortion argument, a lot of the arguments bleed into one another and you have arguments about arguments about arguments... It is a multidimensional problem...

But in any event, I think we more or less have the right of it.

It should be legal, but there should be a limit on when you can get it, and it seems like a lot of states have drawn the line at the 3rd trimester and most of us are fine with that...

Click to expand...

The same logic follows for Life Begins at Conception proponents. If we codify from this viewpoint we must outlaw the IUD and all chemical contraceptives because they either prevent or can prevent the implantation of a fertile days egg. We must also give rapists, including incest perpetrators the right to be birth Fathers under any circumstance regardless of the trauma to their victims.

Then there’s the dilemma when the health of the Mother is at risk. I’ve never heard the solution put forth by total antiabortion advocates on how to handle that.

The uncomfortable fact is Republican women use IUD’s, chemical contraception and they have abortions.

ViaCrucis said:

Except that it's not. You might find Roe v. Wade to be morally reprehensible, morally wrong, and all sorts of things--but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

is an unborn baby created by God?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

W2L said:

is an unborn baby created by God?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court rules based on the constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.

Desk trauma said:

The Supreme Court rules based on the constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.

Click to expand...

So the declaration is useless.

W2L said:

So the declaration is useless.

Click to expand...

It does not carry the force of law and its nonsensical to quote it to say something is unconstitutional.

Desk trauma said:

It does not carry the force of law.

Click to expand...

It did at one time, otherwise its a useless declaration.

W2L said:

is an unborn baby created by God?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Click to expand...

says nothing about women. Which makes sense. Rules like these only impact women's bodies and there is exactly 0 legal impact or considerations for men surrounding these new laws.

A larger sentence for aborting a product of rape than ATCUALLY raping? That is fully, full on messed up in my mind.

W2L said:

It did at one time, ..

Click to expand...

That time has passed. The constitution is the highest law in the US and SCOTUS is the last word on was is or is not constitutional.

rambot said:

A larger sentence for aborting a product of rape than ATCUALLY raping? That is fully, full on messed up in my mind.

Click to expand...

It will end up ruining some poor woman’s life but I really am curious to see if, should their fantasies come true and Roe be overturned, any of these states are going to weather the storm and actually enforce these odious laws.

rambot said:

says nothing about women. Which makes sense. Rules like these only impact women's bodies and there is exactly 0 legal impact or considerations for men surrounding these new laws.

A larger sentence for aborting a product of rape than ATCUALLY raping? That is fully, full on messed up in my mind.

Click to expand...

The rape baby is half part of the mother too, i dont understand killing your own child.

W2L said:

The rape baby is half part of the mother too, i dont understand killing your own child.

Click to expand...

Not "half part of the mother"; half genetically. Why don't you talk to the fathers of these children? Why don't they get any of your bluster?

Perfectly fine with this. It's like prosecuting the drug dealer but not the user.

rambot said:

Why don't you talk to the fathers of these children? Why don't they get any of your bluster?

Click to expand...

I would if they were here.

98cwitr said:

Perfectly fine with this. It's like prosecuting the drug dealer but not the user.

Click to expand...

The state has no business prosecuting either buyer or seller so long as no fraud was committed or contaminated product was sold.

Sparagmos said:

Abortion was legal up until the point of quickening (18-20 weeks) when the constitution was written. The founding fathers believed that was when “life” in the womb began.

Click to expand...

Because the mother didn't start feeling the baby move until then. Now with medical advancements, we know exactly every stage of development and can even see it from day to day. I think under those circumstances, perspectives do change.

Desk trauma said:

The state has no business prosecuting either buyer or seller so long as no fraud was committed or contaminated product was sold.

Click to expand...

How about when it kills a 3rd party (I'm a libertarian too...but you have to admit, abortion violates NAP)?

Desk trauma said:

The state has no business prosecuting either buyer or seller so long as no fraud was committed or contaminated product was sold.

Click to expand...

The unborn baby should have rights like other minorities. Would you say the same about reverse discrimination and civil rights laws?

TLK Valentine said:

Too many states already do this.

Click to expand...

Which ones have outlawed IUD’s?