This is for those who want to believe that the legality of abortion is a settled isse and is not likely to affect politics going forward. It is also for those of you who think fundamental human rights are for the Legislatures to decide for each state. If you think that, you are endorsing the idea that a woman who takes a morning after pill can be put to death.
Resolved Issue?
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The mullahs of SC have spoken, it is the will of Allah.
It sure as hell ain’t the will of Jesus.
To be fair, there are 179 or so SC legislators and hopefully not all of them are that bloodthirsty.
Your are right, though. For decades the promise was not to punish the woman, just the evil cabal of doctors and drivers.
I am optimistic and hope other red states try pushing similar legislation, even if not viable, (there is that word) every so often so that when 2024 rolls around we can choose between theocracy and democracy.
I forgot, was it death by stoning? Or shoving off of rooftops?
Oh, the latter was for gay people.
IMO, Amen
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is just as unrealistic as worrying abortion will be extended to the age of 1.
How about seeing what the legislature does before declaring a jihad.
LikeLike
Of course. The point was that what was promised to never happen should Roe be overturned, has been broached. For some, it was just a scam.
I suggested that out of 179, those extremists might fail.
But then look at what happen in the House. McCarthy sold his soul to the loonies to get the job. And now they sit on prominent committees. That kind of stuff can happen at lower levels. Democracy today is frail and the barbarians are at the door.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
It hasn’t happened.
You go on and on about democracy, why are you so afraid of it?
LikeLike
“You go on and on about democracy, why are you so afraid of it?”
Uh, we are losing it. That is what we are afraid of.
As a reminder, you are the one here who hates democracy and want to see it suppressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Uh, we are losing it. That is what we are afraid of.”
No, you are getting it,
You had rule by fiat for half a century, and now it is going to be determined democratically.
You just liked it better when it was rule by YOUR dictators.
LikeLike
…”rule by YOUR dictators.”
Well YOUR dictators have been proven to be incompetent. More often that not a Democratic administration has had to clean up the mess left by GOP predecessors.
Damn that history stuff. Or are you gonna whitewashe that too?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What are you referring to?
LikeLike
Your team tried hard to overturn an election. Had Pence been a Trump minion, they might have succeeded.
You can dismiss the attempt as enthusiastic tourism or a slight delay, and you have I believe, but that does not make it so.
You even deny the election. As in “we will never know”. Wish washy.
Yes we do know. It was fair, above board, most transparent in history and any rules changes were the same for everyone. To keep denying it, is denying the election. Somewhere between pillow man and Kari, you seem to have found a safe niche to throw dirt clods at passing Democrats.
Personally I don’t care, but I am sad and disappointed.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
“You had rule by fiat for half a century, and now it is going to be determined democratically.”
That is ahistorical nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because you say so?
What is the error?
LikeLike
One of the underlying reasons to secede and preserve slavery was the Fugitive Slave Law. It was selectively or not all enforced in the North.
There are now, or probably will be, efforts to curtail travel from red state to blue state for abortion, or even medical care in cases is complications in pregnancy. Certainly the availability of abortive medication has been affected by Walgreen as an example.
Our country has generally accepted freedom of movement for both people and commerce as a key to national unity. True, states can enact laws, like marijuana use, but even that has created a split.
This abortion issue, however, I think needs to resolved nationally. “Your papers please” at the borders of conflicting states is not conducive to anything but more division. Just the idea that a Uber driver can be turned in by a citizen and sued for $10,000 plus whatever the latest legal wrinkle the state applies for taking a pregnant Texas woman to New Mexico is East Germany redux.
Roe, like it or not provided that state lines did not determine access to healthcare regarding pregnancy and abortion as decided by the woman and her doctors. With certain limitations that the majority of Americans approved of.
For now, and maybe years to come, the poor women’s forced pregnancy legislation will continue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I disagree that a Federal solution is best, Trying different approaches will show us the best balance between protecting unborn life and the interests of the potential mothers.
But even if a Federal solution were to be imposed, it should be by Congress, not judicail fiat.
LikeLike
“Because you say so . . .”
Life is too short to provide history lessons for people with zero interest in learning them.
LikeLike
So, you have no actual error to point to, you just don’t like the facts.
The Burger court usurped the power of the legislatures to create new Federal law overriding the laws of the State legislatures by fiat.
Scotus returned that power to the State legislatures, which are finding their ways as we speak. It will take a decade for the State laws to normalize. Some will be too strict and some will be too lax but they will learn from each other and find the solutions that best fit their states.
What is historically incorrect there? Not what you don’t like, but what is factual error?
LikeLike
“So, you have no actual error to point to, you just don’t like the facts.”
You are not even presenting the supposed “facts” in an intelligible way. I find your paragraph about what the Burger court did indecipherable. I have no idea what you think you are talking about.
LikeLike
So again, you can point to no error.
LikeLike
“So again, you can point to no error.”
Was I not clear enough?
It is impossible to find “error” in incoherent gibberish.
LikeLike
Ok, you can find no error and can’t read.
LikeLike
“Ok, you can find no error and can’t read.”
I read just fine. Your writing needs a lot of improvement. It is gibberish.
This is a “fact” I am supposed to prove to be an error (for some reason only you understand). . .
“The Burger court usurped the power of the legislatures to create new Federal law overriding the laws of the State legislatures by fiat.”
First of all there is no “power of the legislatures to create new Federal law” to usurp. Never has been.
Secondly, Federal law has always been above state law when they are in conflict. The Burger Court had nothing to do with it. It derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preemption
As to the word “fiat” – you use it as an empty buzz word. There is nothing concrete about it in this garbled context.
LikeLike
Was the Burger Court elected by the people, and just as importantly, did they stand for reelection? If not, they were not a legislative body and had no Constitutional authority to make new law.
They did so by fiat, powers they simply assumed out of thin air.
Reread the quote you posted “The Burger court…”
Where did I say the State legislatures could make Federal law? I said the court made Federal law overriding the States laws, which it had no power to do.
You don’t read to understand, you twist words to your preconceived meaning.
LikeLike
Have I missed something? When did Warren Burger become a “conservative” bugaboo. I have no idea what you think you are talking about. You are failing to communicate anything with your mangled prose.
But, if we are going to talk about the Supreme Court and how they get into office, who elected the current activist court dominated by people who promised under oath to honor decades-old precedent and then threw it out to achieve a partisan goal of taking fundamental rights from women? Who elected them?
LikeLike
Irrelevant word salad.
SCOTUS did not have the authority to legislate, it did anyway, that is rule by fiat.
Now, the issue is returned to the legislatures, that is the democracy you always wanted, except when you want to be ruled.
LikeLike
“SCOTUS did not have the authority to legislate, it did anyway, that is rule by fiat.”
I had thought we were talking about the fact that democracy is in danger. I see now you were talking about Roe V. Wade.
Your claim is nonsense. There is no legislation. There is no fiat. They interpreted the Constitution on an issue it did not directly address. That is their function. A large portion of the population agreed with their decision. They still do.
And now you are happy because the fundamental rights of women are going to be up for a vote state by state. And all along I have thought you were in favor of Constitutional restraints on the power of democracy to abrogate rights. Goes to show how wrong you can be.
LikeLike
“That is just as unrealistic as worrying abortion will be extended to the age of 1.”
It is hardly “unrealistic.” Several states already ban abortion from conception onward. Others are trying to get there. These SC legislators just have the courage to carry that personhood logic to where it leads.
The real point of the post was that this issue is not going to go away (as you predicted) and that it will continue from now on to favor Democrats everywhere. People do not like extremists. Forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies from conception onward is extremist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “you are endorsing the idea that a woman who takes a morning after pill can be put to death.”
Is that a fact? How would fertilization be established?
I believe that “fundamental human rights” are a given of the human condition. They cannot be created or destroyed by society or by government. It follows from this view that fundamental human rights arise in the very instant that a new human being exists — at the moment of fertilization.
There are those who say there can be no human being in the absence of a foetus’s ability to be conscious of pain.I find the proposal impractical, since it is virtually impossible to know when consciousness begins. We know only that the consciousness of a new human being cannot exist prior to fertilization.
So, all in all I find there can be no moral basis for killing any foetus from the moment of conception forward. A law which codifies these observations seems eminently reasonable to me.
LikeLike
A new human being is created when the fetus leaves the womb.
Earlier is all potential.
Now before anyone gets upset, I am not in favor of late term abortions except for the reason that virtually all late term abortions take place: life or health threats to the mother or a non-viable fetus that is already dead, or will be unable to survive without extraordinary medical intervention for it’s time on earth. And those decisions are solely the responsibility of the woman and her physician.
Already there are numerous tragic cases where women who really wanted a child, but there are life threatening complications or horrible deformities and they could not get abortions. Doctors refused, or their hospital refused, not because it was the right medical decision, rather the confusing and draconian laws needed judgement to be approved if someone complained. Then lawyers, court battles, time and money. So yes, there were acceptable exceptions, but the legal entanglements would be easier to avoid by refusing what would be a safe, ethical decision.
5 Texas women filed suit with 5 such cases.
You are correct about determining the moment of conception for legal prosecution. But if that is the benchmark, then it better be an accurate and Constitutional method.
A wrinkle to this has been adjudicated in recent years, and that is miscarriage. As in women being prosecuted for having one. A sizable percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Exact estimates are hard because of a variety of practical and medical reasons, but I have seen from 25% on up.
I certainly hope those favoring the death penalty for women having abortions fail and find Jesus in their hearts instead of self appointed avengers.
Finally, modern science and medicine are stretching boundaries that really test us. We can create life with a Petri (not “peter”.🙄) or test tube. We can keep non-viable bodies pumping blood via machinery almost indefinitely. That does not make it the right thing to do and we have barely broached this from a consensus built legal framework.
This is my opinion and I hope the usual catcalls of murderer will take a backseat. Or just get out of the car.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “A new human being is created when the fetus leaves the womb.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could solve all the problems of the world just by making philosophical postulates? In this case I’d be interested to see how the postulate can be substantiated. I wonder, for example, at what point during exit from the birth canal does the foetus become created as a human being? Does it happen by percentages, or all at once? And what is the mechanism of creation? How does the creation know that it must occur for a ceasarian birth where the birth canal is avoided? Does the foetus become a dead human being when it is stillborn?
I’m not being fascetious. To solve the puzzle Mr. Murphy has posed it is essential to establish when and how human rights become actionable.
RE: “You are correct about determining the moment of conception for legal prosecution. But if that is the benchmark, then it better be an accurate and Constitutional method.”
How is it not accurate and Constitutional?
LikeLike
“To solve the puzzle Mr. Murphy has posed it is essential to establish when and how human rights become actionable.”
We had already done that with Roe v. Wade. Viability. Until viability the fetus is subject ot the choice of the mother. That is how it should be. Women are people too and not vessels of the state. Neither Len’s “postulate” nor yours was given the force of law under Roe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “We had already done that with Roe v. Wade. Viability.”
I don’t think so. Roe’s viability parameter is arbitrary.
LikeLike
” Roe’s viability parameter is arbitrary.”
Says who? You?
Viability was not the reason Roe was overturned. It was overturned to return the decision to the states. But as has been happening, the numerous states are going willy-nilly in BOTH directions. A federal law guaranteeing a right to privacy (4th Amendment ring a bell?) with regard to medical decisions between a patient and doctor is needed. All of these GOP proposals are in violation of the 4th. – IMO
LikeLike
“How is it not accurate and Constitutional?”
How would you determine exact times of fertilization? Not just approximate, but exact. If we are going to kill the mother we should require exact. Not “maybe within the last two weeks”.
We do exact time and date for live births for a litany of legal reasons developed over centuries of jurisprudence.
And how invasive should we allow prosecutors to be. I am not an OBGYN, but if a woman who had had sex, then got killed in a car accident the next day or whatever the minimal time for spermicide to meet and join the egg, what is the time of death for the egg? If unfertilized, prove it in court. Is the other driver liable for 2 fatalities. Some states say yes.
What if she survived but with injuries that may have killed the fetus weeks later. Was the accident the cause or just a normal miscarriage.
Remember, we spent decades parsing the placement of a comma in the 2nd, so don’t dismiss the unlikely or absurd. Lawyers love cases like this.
Inheritance issues or any others based on “effective at midnight on such and such a date”, would be very important if the egg is considered a full citizen.
As far as your contention of birth canal position of the fetus as it emerges, that is the silly debate about partial birth abortion. There are very few, if any, late term abortions for convenience. Medical necessity is the reason. The Texas lawsuit by five women demonstrates the horror of these draconian abortion laws. That is the straw man of the anti-abortion movement.
Citizenship. Have sex in Canada, then cross the border. It used be “born here, you are American”. Fertilization location would have to codified. And, again proven.
Medication. So many drugs today warn against taking if pregnant. Fine and dandy if you know you are, which for many maybe even after a missed period or two, even three.
Murder charges if dead embryo or fetus is found later?
I stated my position in my first post. I will compromise, kicking and screaming, (me, not the woman) that viability for a normal healthy delivery after no less than 24 weeks. And if a serious anomaly pops up after that, doctor patient still decide. Maybe a second opinion, but no lawyers.
I also have not much praise for those who would force the birth of a seriously deformed babies that may live a few years, and be permanently and completely dependent, and in pain for its most often short life. I compare that to taking a healthy person and crippling him for life. Cruel and absolutely unnecessary.
If money and lawyers are involved, you can bet these issues will come up.
Please don’t focus on excruciating detail of my examples. The point is that making a fertilized egg a citizen is a packed with legal issues.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “How would you determine exact times of fertilization?”
Why would we need to? If there is a foetus, fertilition must have occurred.
RE: “I also have not much praise for those who would force the birth of a seriously deformed babies that may live a few years, and be permanently and completely dependent, and in pain for its most often short life.”
Yeah, well, ideally the law isn’t based on personal preferences.
RE: “The point is that making a fertilized egg a citizen is a packed with legal issues.”
I don’t think so. Besides, associating human rights with fertilization doesn’t make a foetus a citizen.
LikeLike
Now this is the kind of thinking I have trouble with.
Giving birth to a severely deformed fetus, knowingly, took the choice from the fetus already. That is anti-abortion extreme. “The fetus has no choice”.
And saying “personal preference” is an insult to the already tragic situation for expectant parents, who often devastated with the news.
That is a cruel, unnecessary view of some that smacks of perceived moral superiority.
IMO
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That is a cruel, unnecessary view of some that smacks of perceived moral superiority.”
“Smacks of” shows you are making unwarranted assumptions.
Give us your positive argument for killing severely deformed foetuses. Your burden is the show that they have no human rights or that if they do it is acceptable to violate them.
Because I believe human rights necessarily occur at the moment of conception I’m obligated to accept that some severely deformed babies will be born. The most I’m willing to say about it is, Sometimes bad things happen.
LikeLike
Talk about Cavalier.
If you are so willing to force the birth, then put your money where your mouth is and literally accept him, pay for his medical care, feed him and bury him when the pain is finally over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If you are so willing to force the birth, then put your money where your mouth is and literally accept him, pay for his medical care, feed him and bury him when the pain is finally over.”
A) I haven’t advocated forcing births. You are mischaracterizing the position I have stated.
B) I took all those risks when I had children of my own.
LikeLike
Billions of families had children. Nothing special except to the immediate families.
If you want to make a fertilized egg like a person and are ok with others giving birth to severely defective fetuses, how would you enforce that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I haven’t advocated forcing births. You are mischaracterizing the position I have stated.”
“Because I believe human rights necessarily occur at the moment of conception I’m obligated to accept that some severely deformed babies will be born. The most I’m willing to say about it is, Sometimes bad things happen.”
Sorry, but I read YOUR own words to be advocating to forcing births.
“I took all those risks when I had children of my own.”
Did you and your wife have to decide about the viability of the life of your children due to a severe abnormality? If not, then there was NO risk to your child or your wife.
Screw you and forcing YOUR morality on others.
LikeLike
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we could solve all the problems of the world just by making philosophical postulates? ”
You are just as guilty in supporting the idea of life beginning at conception.
“How is it not accurate and Constitutional?
Faith-based decision. As long as YOUR faith is the one it is based on.
LikeLike
RE: “You are just as guilty in supporting the idea of life beginning at conception.”
Wrong.
LikeLike
“Wrong.”
Back attcah, Mr. Roberts, the Pious.
LikeLike
“A law which codifies these observations seems eminently reasonable to me.”
Based on your wife’s Catholic faith, that is reasonable. FOR CATHOLICS. Hw about the rest of the word who BELIEVES that life begins at different times. Some say at the quickening. Jews believe life begins when the first breath is taken.
Your statement is further proof of faith-based law making.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They can shuck and jive all they want, the obvious truth is they want the law to force their RELIGIOUS beliefs on other people. Nothing could be more fundamentally anti-Constitutional than that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Your statement is further proof of faith-based law making.”
And yet, the moral case I posted is entirely secular.
LikeLike
…”the moral case I posted is entirely secular.”
No. Your “moral” case is based strictly on the belief that life begins at conception. A belief that is rejected by many ore than it is accepted.;
LikeLike
“Is that a fact? How would fertilization be established?”
The proposed law defines a person to be from a fertilized egg onward and puts the same sanctions on killing that person as any other. Sure, enforcing it will be difficult for morning after pills but the principle is established. And would apply other zygotes where the proof would be more readily available.
There is nothing “eminently reasonable” about using the force of law to compel others to follow your moral opinions. That is the crux of the issue and has been from the beginning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The crux of the issue is at what point an unborn child has rights and deserves protection through the law. Your “moral” opinion is kill em unless maybe they can breath on their own, other’s opinion is they are humans at conception. I think most independents and centrist left and right see 15-18 weeks as mature enough to deserve protection and more than enough time to opt for abortion before hand. That’s 4 months.
LikeLike
…”I think most independents and centrist left and right see 15-18 weeks as mature enough to deserve protection”
The issue is the law proposes that humanity is established at fertilization. Plus, NO exceptions for rape or incest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see this bill of having a snowballs chance in hell passing into law but I was responding to Pauls assertion of what the crux of the issue is, not the proposed bill.
LikeLike
If I’m not mistaken (which seems a pipedream😊) many of the most effective birth control methods, like LARC’S (long acting reversible contraceptives) prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. A conundrum easily solvable by “mullah decrees”: banning.
Get rid of whatever sex-education we have left in schools, and we can really pack the prison. Upside, more profit for the private prisons. Yay!
An even better benefit is that we can get rid of a lot of poor welfare queens and those that work low wage jobs who clamor for raising wages. The richer women will no problem leaving for saner states that are Blue instead of “blood” Red.
Gosh, the benefits are endless.
Now, for the literal, there is some sarcasm sprinkled in this post. The challenge is to find the ludicrous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “If I’m not mistaken (which seems a pipedream😊) many of the most effective birth control methods, like LARC’S (long acting reversible contraceptives) prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.”
I think SC’s legislation might force some of those products off the market. I’m OK with that. The way I see it, the rationale for laws cannot be easily invalidated just because the laws are inconvenient.
LikeLike
” I’m OK with that”
Why should it matter to you? You can’t get pregnant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have spent more than 40 years of my life with someone who could and did get pregnant. And you expect me to say these issues don’t matter to me?
LikeLike
You and your wife have had your children. Why is it so important to codify your own personal beliefs on others? Why are you so hellbent on denying woman bodily autonomy?
If you don’t want an abortion don’t have one. If you don’t believe in a woman’s right to have control over her body, you can do that within the confines of your marriage. Keep your nose out of other people’s business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Why is it so important to codify your own personal beliefs on others?”
Why do you accuse me of that? I have made an argument and I have been supporting it. Do you really find it necessary to criticize me personally?
LikeLike
Your argument has been challenged due to its ACTAUL basis and not where you SAY it comes from. Life beings at conception is a BELIEF. Period. You are voicing support for YOUR belief to be codified.
LikeLike
RE: “Sure, enforcing it will be difficult for morning after pills but the principle is established.”
A principle that cannot be applied cannot be established. The principle cannot be applied or established where morning-after pills are concerned, although I csn see it might be applied, say, to in-vitro fertilizations.
RE: “There is nothing ’eminently reasonable’ about using the force of law to compel others to follow your moral opinions.”
Isn’t that what you are attempting to do? I have substantiated my moral opinion. We have yet to hear you substantiate yours.
LikeLike
“A principle that cannot be applied cannot be established. ”
Being difficult to apply is not the same as “cannot” be applied.” And, when such a law is passed, then pharmacists can be charged with accessory to murder. Or Fedex for delivering them. Some states are already criminalizing them. The possibilities for mischief are unlimited when you start from a nonsense principle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Being difficult to apply is not the same as ‘cannot be applied.'”
Sure, let’s pretend that reality is based on semantics.
RE: “The possibilities for mischief are unlimited when you start from a nonsense principle.”
Maybe so, but you have yet to show that SC’s law is based on a nonsense principle. You complain only that the consequences of enacting it would be inconvenient.
LikeLike
“Maybe so, but you have yet to show that SC’s law is based on a nonsense principle.”
There is no “showing” that it is a nonsense principle. It is a matter of opinion.
I think making a fertilized egg the legal equivalent of a living breathing person is nonsense. I support my view with – for example – the reductio ad absurdum of putting women to death for taking a morning after pill or having an IUD which kills the blastocyte.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I support my view with – for example – the reductio ad absurdum of putting women to death for taking a morning after pill or having an IUD which kills the blastocyte.”
Yeah, like I said, the absurdities you mention are consequences you consider to be incovenient, but your imagined inconveniences do not invalidate the SC law or the reasonable principle it is based on — that human rights must begin at the beginning of human life.
LikeLike
“…that human rights must begin at the beginning of human life.”
Because you say so does not make it so. Millennia of laws codified the rights of people from the day of birth. Age based on birthdays determine a slew of laws, rights, responsibilities and privileges. You need to be 18 to reach majority for signing contracts, loans, driving, service…you get the picture. Do we now make the new age 17.25. If not, why not? Premature birth, 17.5.
This may sound absurd, but it is real. You can bet it will be a legal Gordian Knot for both the avaricious and the principled who want to force the issue until it breaks.
Roe allowed for a compromise and it worked. Science of birth control and effective education as available brought abortion rates way down already. Turning back to clock to make women and/or their doctors criminals to soothe religious based or religious outright feelings is counterproductive and cruel.
IMO
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Inconvenient?”
Locking yourself out of your house is inconvenient. Forcing pregnancy to term is criminal at best. Particularly considering that pregnancy is always risky, delivery even more so.
An incredible sequence of biological events have to happen properly and in order to create a born child. Good, accessible quality healthcare before and after and good nutrition are critical. And our ability or even desire to provide that to all income levels is shameful. And if you are true to your beliefs, there should be zero difference between rich and poor regarding pregnancy and birth. None. The child born had no say in the wealth of his parents. Also none.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is a positive with this kind of legislative effort. Should it become law, we will have found the elixir to turn Red States to Blue.
Face it, a death row full of young women, with a few nice, botched executions for extra measure, is not a really a good look, or more precisely, a vote getter.
And a young, talented innovator who happens to be women will certainly reconsider working or living in such a state?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“. . . we will have found the elixir to turn Red States to Blue.”
And that was kind of the point of this posting. This issue is not going away and it does not work for Republicans – people just don’t like extremists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”people just don’t like extremists.”
You know you are about to be called an extremist who wants abortion on demand up to delivery, right? That is what “they” always do when you pull out the extremist tag.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure, these extremists lie all the time. Their calling a fetus a “baby” is an egregious lie. They about on-demand abortions up through birth. They lie about what was possible under Roe v Wade. All the time.
Roe v Wade was the opposite of extreme and enjoys overwhelming public support. It was a Solomaic answer to an intractably thorny question. The GOP destroyed it and should continue to be held accountable – all of them – everytime someone tries to pass laws like this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Their calling a fetus a ‘baby’ is an egregious lie.”
How so, because you don’t like it?
RE: “Roe v Wade was the opposite of extreme and enjoys overwhelming public support.”
It was bad law. Hence the justification for overturning it. Rights and obligations cannot be derived from circumstantial “penumbras.”
LikeLike
The justification for overturning Roe was the religious fanaticism of the new justices.
The idea of overturning it was to return the decision to the states. Well, now several states are speaking out, without conferring with their constituents, as Kansas did, and putting into place draconian laws and measures to destroy the humanity of women. But in your world, and theirs, there is no humanity in a woman who decides to end a pregnancy.
LikeLike
“How so, because you don’t like it?”
Because it is a lie. Words have meanings. That is why we have different words for “baby”, “fetus,” “zygote,” “blastocyst,” etc.
“baby : very young child, especially one newly or recently born.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t be serious. Do you really mean to say it is a lie to call a foetus a baby because they are different words?
Pitiful.
LikeLike
Pitiful alright. A baby has never been define as a fertilized egg except by the anti-abortion side. They invented that to further the cause by association.
No one here stumping for forced pregnancies to term has read about the recent Texas lawsuits. Too real, I suppose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dr. Semantics calling someone else’s semantics “pitiful”. Look in the freaking mirror the next time you say that.
LikeLike
RE: “The justification for overturning Roe was the religious fanaticism of the new justices.”
I doubt that. You assume too much.
LikeLike
I assume nothing. All three of the Trump-appointed justices have shown by their records, words and actions they are led by their religious convictions and use them to justify their decisions.
LikeLike
“Pitiful.”
The are not just different words. They are different things. And that is the point.
Spermatazoa are alive and they are human. They are human life. If I call them “babies” can I then put you in jail for mass murder should you spill your seed upon the ground? If not, why not. They are “babies.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If I call them ‘babies’ can I then put you in jail for mass murder should you spill your seed upon the ground?”
You probably could, if you could get a law based on such a weird view passed. But I doubt you could pass such a law because most people would see your semantic reasoning as hollow.
LikeLike
RE: “A baby has never been define as a fertilized egg except by the anti-abortion side.”
Is that a fact? Biologists routinely distinguish between parents and children and commonly say that children begin life at fertilization. Why shouldn’t these natural relationships be codified in law?
LikeLike
“. . . most people would see your semantic reasoning as hollow.”
But, that is exactly the “sematic reasoning” you people use. Exactly. Which was the point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not the “semantic reasoning” I have used.
LikeLike
As with the Texan women one of whom could have died for the inability to abort a child she really wanted but wasn’t viable, and she had to carry to term. Who is responsible for the murder of the mother had she not survived? Legislators? The hospital and doctors would not risk legal action because the penalties were draconian and the law was not absolutely precise.
Or maybe charge the near dead baby. Proper care was withheld not for malpractice but for a bad law. Pregnancy is very risky for the mother as is delivery. And we have a pitiful record of maternal and infant mortality. Never mine post partum care if you’re poor. Few give a crap about a poor baby compared to a fertilized egg that even naturally has a 25%+ chance of miscarriage. Pre-natal care for low income is pretty bad on top of all that. Especially in states like Mississippi.
And there is no doubt this law only affects low income people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Texas lawsuit only asks that the legislature better state what is required by a doctor to perform an abortion in cases such as these. Th petitioners are not asking for the law to be tossed, just better written and clarified.
LikeLike