Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[daddyusmaximus]

 

[KLB]

So Republicans and guns?

Pretty much

 

[chipbennett]

Chip, I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I agree that there is a fundamental difference of views between us that no amount of good-faith discussion is likely to bridge.

Certainly. It is the reason that I intentionally avoid ad hominem, hyperbole, and straw man arguments - and, outside of limited, civil discourse (such as this one), no longer even try to engage in debate on the topic. But, in the rare opportunity presents itself, I do find these discussions to be useful to help us understand each other.

I do, however, disagree on the nature of that disagreement. It isn’t that I don’t see the unborn as human, I see the unborn as subject to their mother’s rule.

I agree with that, as well. My children, not yet being of legal age, are also subject to my (and their mother's) rule (for a given meaning of "rule").

I will argue until I’m blue in the face that the government’s authority does not (and where it does, should not) extend into my body. In here no authority rises above my own, and I believe the same applies to pregnant women.

You, no doubt, would argue until you are blue in the face that it is the government’s place to intervene, personal agency and liberty of the mother be damned, in order to “save” the life of that child.

There is a somewhat snarky meme, that visually indicates "your body" (the mother) vs "not your body" (the child in utero). It is snarky, but accurate. The body of the child in utero is not the body of the mother. Coupled with the fact that the child in utero is in utero only (in 98+% of abortions) because of a deliberate, willful, intentional act of the mother, I do not find it persuasive that the mother has some unique right to end that life in utero.

The logic supporting current, pro-abortion thinking is very difficult to separate from the logic that once supported chattel slavery. To argue that it is morally acceptable for the mother to end the life of the child in utero, but if someone else ends that life, that act is morally and legally unjust, is materially no different from a slave owner being morally just in taking the life of one of his slaves, but someone else taking the life of that slave being morally/legally unjust.

Either the being in utero is a living human being, to which all attendant, natural rights (including the right to life) attach, or it is not. All too often (if not, always), those who support abortion will give lip service to "viability", but ultimately seek a consensus on allowing/prohibiting abortion based on "viability" - I suspect, because basing the acceptability of abortion on "viability" undermines the assertion that the mother has an inviolable right to end the life of the being in utero. After all, if the being has the right to life in utero once the point of "viability" is reached, then that right conflicts with the right of the mother to end that life in utero.

I see some of that dichotomy in your responses.

There is one other place we disagree that I think is worth mentioning: there are fates worse than death. If my choice is to offer my unborn child a life of limitless suffering or no life at all, from my view choosing the latter would be an act of compassion.

Wholeheartedly, we disagree here. I believe that life is always more compassionate than compelled death. (Suicide might be another matter, but that is an entirely separate can of worms to discuss. What is relevant in this discussion is that in one case, death is the choice of the one who's life is taken, whereas in the other case, death is the choice of a third party.)

Winston Churchill is an interesting case study in this discussion.

Thank you for your replies, it has been a pleasure engaging with you on this topic.

Likewise; I appreciate your willingness to engage in civil discourse.

 

[jamil]

I could google it but I could also be lazy. Anyone have a cite/link for post-Roe Indiana abortion statute(s)?

Oh, now you ask! I had just found the iC and was going to post it but TJBB posted essentially what it said. Now I’m on my phone.

In googling this, it’s amazing how many different results I get. One said all the way to term, which is only if it puts the mother at risk. Some say 20 weeks. Some say 22 weeks. Some say 1st trimester. And some said up to 2nd trimester.

All of those are true, depending on what part of the law you’re read. The one that said it was all the way up to term was from a pro-life site, which kind of glossed over the part about if the mother’s life is in danger. The one that said first trimester was from left leaning media. So both seemed to be trying to make it sound worse for its intended audience, presumably to drum up outrage.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, now you ask! I had just found the iC and was going to post it but TJBB posted essentially what it said. Now I’m on my phone.

In googling this, it’s amazing how many different results I get. One said all the way to term, which is only if it puts the mother at risk. Some say 20 weeks. Some say 22 weeks. Some say 1st trimester. And some said up to 2nd trimester.

All of those are true, depending on what part of the law you’re read. The one that said it was all the way up to term was from a pro-life site, which kind of glossed over the part about if the mother’s life is in danger. The one that said first trimester was from left leaning media. So both seemed to be trying to make it sound worse for its intended audience, presumably to drum up outrage.

...which is why I'd prefer to read the actual IC. There are reporting biases on all sides.

 

[jamil]

...which is why I'd prefer to read the actual IC. There are reporting biases on all sides.

I guess I’m too lazy to look it up again. I think I remember it bing IC 16.somethingorother. Or at least there’s a 16 somewhere in it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I could google it but I could also be lazy. Anyone have a cite/link for post-Roe Indiana abortion statute(s)?

Indiana doesn't have a "trigger law", so there is no statute for it. The current law stays in effect unless the legislature changes it.

Oh, now you ask! I had just found the iC and was going to post it but TJBB posted essentially what it said. Now I’m on my phone.

In googling this, it’s amazing how many different results I get. One said all the way to term, which is only if it puts the mother at risk. Some say 20 weeks. Some say 22 weeks. Some say 1st trimester. And some said up to 2nd trimester.

All of those are true, depending on what part of the law you’re read. The one that said it was all the way up to term was from a pro-life site, which kind of glossed over the part about if the mother’s life is in danger. The one that said first trimester was from left leaning media. So both seemed to be trying to make it sound worse for its intended audience, presumably to drum up outrage.

For the 20/22 week difference it's 20 weeks fetal age 22 weeks since last menstrual period.

I guess I’m too lazy to look it up again. I think I remember it bing IC 16.somethingorother. Or at least there’s a 16 somewhere in it.

It is. Sorry I can't post a link to the actual .gov IC, the site is being wonky for me for some reason. ETA There are a couple of parts that are on temp/perm hold due to injunctions. Parental notification of a minor who gets court approval is one. Can't remember the other(s).

Indiana Code Title 16. Health § 16-34-2-1.1 | FindLaw

Indiana Title 16. Health Section 16-34-2-1.1. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

 

[chipbennett]

Indiana doesn't have a "trigger law", so there is no statute for it. The current law stays in effect unless the legislature changes it.

For the 20/22 week difference it's 20 weeks fetal age 22 weeks since last menstrual period.

It is. Sorry I can't post a link to the actual .gov IC, the site is being wonky for me for some reason. ETA There are a couple of parts that are on temp/perm hold due to injunctions. Parental notification of a minor who gets court approval is one. Can't remember the other(s).

Indiana Code Title 16. Health § 16-34-2-1.1 | FindLaw

Indiana Title 16. Health Section 16-34-2-1.1. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

I think this is the relevant section?

Indiana Code Title 16. Health § 16-34-2-3 | FindLaw

Indiana Title 16. Health Section 16-34-2-3. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

 

[chipbennett]

I think this is the relevant section?

Indiana Code Title 16. Health § 16-34-2-3 | FindLaw

Indiana Title 16. Health Section 16-34-2-3. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

I am struck by a thought here: one of the arguments of abortion proponents is that most (90%, 99%?) of abortions are performed earlier than 15 weeks. I wonder if such abortion proponents would then still take issue with Indiana's law, that allows for elective abortion up through 20 weeks? (Cynically, I suspect that Indiana would still be lumped into the "anti-choice"/"anti-women" states.)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think this is the relevant section?

Indiana Code Title 16. Health § 16-34-2-3 | FindLaw

Indiana Title 16. Health Section 16-34-2-3. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Yes, and no. I posted the link to the wrong page sorta. Here is the link I should have posted. It's the section of code before the one I did.

Indiana Code Title 16. Health § 16-34-2-1 | FindLaw

Indiana Title 16. Health Section 16-34-2-1. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

 

[KLB]

I am struck by a thought here: one of the arguments of abortion proponents is that most (90%, 99%?) of abortions are performed earlier than 15 weeks. I wonder if such abortion proponents would then still take issue with Indiana's law, that allows for elective abortion up through 20 weeks? (Cynically, I suspect that Indiana would still be lumped into the "anti-choice"/"anti-women" states.)

Abortion proponents and opponents seem to tend towards all or nothing, as the case may be. It is the people in the middle that would judge that. It seems to be in the area of acceptability.

 

[chipbennett]

Abortion proponents and opponents seem to tend towards all or nothing, as the case may be. It is the people in the middle that would judge that. It seems to be in the area of acceptability.

That wasn't really my question, though. Would abortion proponents consider Indiana "anti-choice"/"anti-women"/"Literal Gilead"/etc. with laws that permit elective abortion until 20 weeks, while simultaneously admitting/claiming that 99% of abortions take place earlier than 15 weeks?

 

[HoughMade]

I have no issue with being super-serious and super irreverent at the same time.

My favorite name: "Fetus Yeetus"

 

[BugI02]

I'm not sure what provoked the police to go hands on, but given the summer of love, I strongly suspect they were being non-peaceful in their protests.

One of the ways you minimize the chances of a 'next time' is you give it to them so bad the first time that they won't want a 'next time'

 

[BugI02]

Individuals have the right to act in a way that on the whole might have negative effects. Society will sort out the details.

I hope you would keep in mind that, like politics, 'society' is probably granular to the local level. If Antifa or Jane's Revenge claim the right to act in ways a locality might find has 'negative effects', how 'society' sorts that out will vary substantially from location to location. The video of SC police tasing and arresting protesters compared to how they would be treated in DC or Seattle should attest to that

Thinking that the concept of 'society' is a monolithic whole rather than a vector sum may lead to those acting up too much in the wrong place developing leaks. People from progressive enclaves seem to expect their home RoE to apply everywhere and are quite surprised when they do not

 

[BugI02]

When it comes to the 2A, we are pretty much like the pro abortion crowd. No new laws and repeal most if not all restrictions.

Two critical differences. Our position on 2A is backed up by the constitution and we have already 'compromised' on infringement too much and thus, seeing there is no end to the compromising (read: desired further infringement), we dig in our heels

Neither is true of those who are pro-abortion. Their position has no constitutional backing and their continued push for less and less restriction was never met with meaningful, court sanctioned limitation UNTIL the question was taken up by the final court possible

 

[BugI02]

I agree. but if a law was GUARANTEED to pass, such as the latest kneejerk, would you prefer a bill overnight that includes an AWB and magazine limits, or a bill in 3 weeks that doesnt include such BS?

And "I prefer neither" is not an option for this discussion as it misses/avoids my point.

At the very least, allow enough time for the legislators, as well as the electorate, to actually read and comment upon it

No more 'We had to pass the bill in order to see what was in it'

 

[BugI02]

Plus I don't see the reason for believing either that getting a law quickly means it will be bad, nor that if it is bad we'll be unable to change it in six months. In my mind, simplicity is often what makes the best laws, and simplicity is generally achieved in a shorter span of time.

This is still a very hot button issue for many if not most legislators. IMO they would like to 'do something' with as little publicity and debate as soon as possible in order to minimize the effects on their primary concern of acquiring or maintaining a seat at the trough

I am skeptical if you got a bad law that there would be much support for re-opening the issue later on. They want this controversy swept under the rug ASAP

The fact of how many of the unborn were being killed daily was the emergency and they did nothing

Now that they HAVE to do something, it is not an emergency and deliberation on what should be done is a feature and not a bug

 

[Leadeye]

I have a picture of her face in my mind if you are correct and she is one ugly woman.

I'm betting that who ever it was sold it for a high dollar. It's been a political money generator since it hit the news.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm betting that who ever it was sold it for a high dollar. It's been a political money generator since it hit the news.

It has been a "Huge" tool in the lefts toolbox of carrots to dangle in the faces of the weak minded. They honed it like a well tuned light saber.