Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pacobird]

I'm guessing it's just a matter of intent? Much as the separation between the degrees of murder.

Disposable Ninja says it's nigh-impossible to determine guilt, but.. well, I don't think the Sprite/Bleach Mix-up Defense really works.

Drinking bleach creates a miscarriage by killing you.


At any rate, this is a law drafted to be a Roe test case for a new Supreme Court.  It doesn't have to make sense.

If you can't care for a baby, then carry it to term and then put it up for adoption.

You seem to believe that abortion is ever the only logical choice, and this just doesn't make any sense to me. Adoption agencies are far more commonly found than abortion clinics, and nobody is going to fire you for putting your baby up for adoption.

Abortion is a constitutionally-protected right.  The merit of the foster/adoption system (which is questionable in its own right) is irrelevant to the right of choice.

[Büge]

Edit: Oh, look.

I don't get it.

[Miss Cat Ears]

It's like pulling a tooth out by tying a string to it and to a doorknob and then slamming the door.

[Royal☭]

What gets me about this issue is that any unsafe miscarriage attempt usually results in the death of the mother as well.  Things like drinking bleach or other of these drastic measures are usually the result of an inability to get a safe, legal abortion, due to the interference of government in a woman's body.

Further more, the law seeks to characterize women who seek abortions or miscarriages as reckless women, conforming to the regular conservative stereotype of loose women who want consequence free sex.  This view typically contributes to the oppression of woman, as it implies they are too crazy and impulsive to be allowed to make their own decisions.

I hate this law and think it's nothing more than the next volley in Utah's attempts to turn women into slaves.

[TA]

If you can't care for a baby, then carry it to term and then put it up for adoption.
You seem to believe that abortion is ever the only logical choice, and this just doesn't make any sense to me. Adoption agencies are far more commonly found than abortion clinics, and nobody is going to fire you for putting your baby up for adoption.

Abortion is a constitutionally-protected right.  The merit of the foster/adoption system (which is questionable in its own right) is irrelevant to the right of choice.

Not to mention that childbirth is a nightmarish process with its own set of risks.  Even in the US, even with every bit of modern medicine at your disposal, and even without any abnormal complications or factors, it's still about a .01% chance of dying.  The risk of serious injury is a lot higher, practically guaranteed, and the hormonal issues throughout and after the pregnancy can have significant side effects to mental health.  Whereas the risks of abortion are pretty minimal.

[Cthulhu-chan]

Buckley's legacy is secured.

[Hraedon]

If you can't care for a baby, then carry it to term and then put it up for adoption.

If that is the course that a woman chooses to take, free of any sort of coercion, more power to her. I am just not as comfortable as you seem to be dictating that choice. You're also comically ignorant about the true costs of bringing a baby to term, but hey, it's not like you care about that.

You seem to believe that abortion is ever the only logical choice, and this just doesn't make any sense to me. Adoption agencies are far more commonly found than abortion clinics, and nobody is going to fire you for putting your baby up for adoption.

Yeah, that's a fair reading of my argument if you are incapable of, you know, reading. My contention, since you're having trouble following along, is that women, regardless of what the law says, are going to exert control over their own bodies. Consequently, we should structure the law to minimize both the need for and risk of abortion. If we decide to deny women access to abortion, it is incredibly disingenuous to a) be shocked, shocked! at the fact that they may make decisions we disagree with and b) pretend that all women are capable of carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption.

The comical ignorance I mentioned earlier is out in full force here. Sure, a woman won't be fired for giving her baby up for adoption. She may be fired for the weeks she has to spend recovering from the pregnancy (unless we're expecting a The Good Earth style delivery and immediate return to the fields), and if she doesn't have insurance she's on the hook for thousands of dollars of medical fees, but anything to prevent you from having that icky feeling I guess.

Edit: Oh, look.

Go fuck yourself.

[Pacobird]

She may be fired for the weeks she has to spend recovering from the pregnancy

A minor quible, but FMLA requires employers to hold your job for up to 3 months every year for medical issues like pregnancy.  Of course, that doesn't mean you're getting paid for it.

[Rico]

Adoption would also be a better choice if, y'know, we had a decent adoption rate and the foster care system weren't riddled with so many anecdotal horror stories they might as well be data.

[Hraedon]

She may be fired for the weeks she has to spend recovering from the pregnancy

A minor quible, but FMLA requires employers to hold your job for up to 3 months every year for medical issues like pregnancy.  Of course, that doesn't mean you're getting paid for it.

Aware, as you must surely be aware that regulations aren't foolproof. Otherwise we would not see 20% of people involved in unionization attempts illegally fired. The women (poor, predominantly minority women) who are in this situation (economically unstable, unable or unwilling to procure an abortion) are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of abuses.

[Pacobird]

Yes, of course.  Naturally, legal remedies "exist", but cost of pursuit is usually prohibitive unless you have a particularly gregarious trial attorney willing to rope together a class action.

Man, if I didn't know better I'd say the wealthy would have a lot to gain by villifying trial lawyers in the eyes of their potential clients through engines like tort reform (damn those greedy lawyers, driving up costs!).  That's crazy talk, though.

Adoption would also be a better choice if, y'know, we had a decent adoption rate and the foster care system weren't riddled with so many anecdotal horror stories they might as well be data.

When I was very young, I lived in a town with one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country.  My family did a lot of foster care, and what I saw as the betrayal of these children by a well-meaning CPS system that was simply hopelessly overwhelmed and underfunded was a big reason I ended up going to law school.  I guess I felt like I had to do something.

Related: this is the single best (and sadly least-cited) practical argument in favor of gay marriage known to me.  My debates on the subject usually end with me asking, even if gay couples are somehow inherently less qualified to raise kids than straights, why an adopting gay couple isn't better than foster care.  Red faces ensue.

[TA]

She may be fired for the weeks she has to spend recovering from the pregnancy

A minor quible, but FMLA requires employers to hold your job for up to 3 months every year for medical issues like pregnancy.  Of course, that doesn't mean you're getting paid for it.

If the business, and your employment in that business, meets the FMLA requirements.  Which are kinda stringent.

[Pacobird]

Well, if I may generalize a bit, if your job doesn't qualify for FMLA, you probably couldn't afford to go without pay for 3 months anyway.

[NexAdruin]

If you can't care for a baby, then carry it to term and then put it up for adoption.

If that is the course that a woman chooses to take, free of any sort of coercion, more power to her. I am just not as comfortable as you seem to be dictating that choice. You're also comically ignorant about the true costs of bringing a baby to term, but hey, it's not like you care about that.

You seem to believe that abortion is ever the only logical choice, and this just doesn't make any sense to me. Adoption agencies are far more commonly found than abortion clinics, and nobody is going to fire you for putting your baby up for adoption.

Yeah, that's a fair reading of my argument if you are incapable of, you know, reading. My contention, since you're having trouble following along, is that women, regardless of what the law says, are going to exert control over their own bodies. Consequently, we should structure the law to minimize both the need for and risk of abortion. If we decide to deny women access to abortion, it is incredibly disingenuous to a) be shocked, shocked! at the fact that they may make decisions we disagree with and b) pretend that all women are capable of carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption.

The comical ignorance I mentioned earlier is out in full force here. Sure, a woman won't be fired for giving her baby up for adoption. She may be fired for the weeks she has to spend recovering from the pregnancy (unless we're expecting a The Good Earth style delivery and immediate return to the fields), and if she doesn't have insurance she's on the hook for thousands of dollars of medical fees, but anything to prevent you from having that icky feeling I guess.

Edit: Oh, look.

Go fuck yourself.

1. Carrying the pregnancy to term shouldn't be done if the mother is at higher risk than most to die during the birth.
2. Drinking bleach is also a danger to the mother, and whether it's for the purpose of killing a fetus or not it is likely to get them locked up anyway for attempted suicide or something along those lines.
3. This law does minimize the risk of abortion, since currently abortion is being performed by people with no medical background and the practices are posing just as much a threat to the mother as they do the fetus. Furthermore, just because women are going to continue to exert control of their bodies regardless of the law doesn't mean that we should make the law fit their desires. Your argument here could be stretched to say that we should get rid of all law period because people are just going to do whatever they want anyway.
4. Telling me to go fuck myself because I brought up what can be considered (in this case) a political cartoon dealing with the issue at hand is, well, juvenile at best.

As legislature, this law is poorly written and will cause abuse enough as to outweigh any good by a factor of ten. As an attempt to make a moral society, however, I can appreciate the sentiment.

[Pacobird]

As legislature, this law is poorly written and will cause abuse enough as to outweigh any good by a factor of ten. As an attempt to make a moral society, however, I can appreciate the sentiment.

And let me tell you, nothing is going to win converts around here faster than "somebody should do something about all the problems" arguments.

[Ted Belmont]

I know I'm a bit late on this but, re: MCE v Everyone:

Looks like someone lacked...the courage of her commitments.

:shades:

YEEEEAAAAAAAAHHH

[Shinra]

I vote that this thread's name get changed to Miscarriage... of Justice!

[Niku]

dots make everything funnier

[NexAdruin]

As legislature, this law is poorly written and will cause abuse enough as to outweigh any good by a factor of ten. As an attempt to make a moral society, however, I can appreciate the sentiment.

And let me tell you, nothing is going to win converts around here faster than "somebody should do something about all the problems" arguments.

What I'm saying is that I agree with the idea, I just don't think that this law will make it a reality without a whole lot of negative consequences dragging along behind it.

[Hraedon]

1. Carrying the pregnancy to term shouldn't be done if the mother is at higher risk than most to die during the birth.

How generous of you.

2. Drinking bleach is also a danger to the mother, and whether it's for the purpose of killing a fetus or not it is likely to get them locked up anyway for attempted suicide or something along those lines.

Yeah, and the problem is serious enough to merit special legislation. Just like young bucks driving their welfare cadillacs to buy steaks with food stamps.

3. This law does minimize the risk of abortion, since currently abortion is being performed by people with no medical background and the practices are posing just as much a threat to the mother as they do the fetus. Furthermore, just because women are going to continue to exert control of their bodies regardless of the law doesn't mean that we should make the law fit their desires. Your argument here could be stretched to say that we should get rid of all law period because people are just going to do whatever they want anyway.

No, what I am actually saying is that we should maybe pass legislation that addresses what the claimed goals are. This legislation does nothing but cause problems and since the goal is actually to increase the state's control over women, your moral admiration is wildly misplaced.

4. Telling me to go fuck myself because I brought up what can be considered (in this case) a political cartoon dealing with the issue at hand is, well, juvenile at best.

By addressing it at all, I gave that part of your post more consideration than it deserved. Be assured that I have nothing but contempt for the cartoon and whatever point you thought it addressed.

As legislature, this law is poorly written and will cause abuse enough as to outweigh any good by a factor of ten. As an attempt to make a moral society, however, I can appreciate the sentiment.

You know, I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the people who offer up "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," but if this is the sort of shit that is meant, I may have to reprise my view. Suffice it to say that this bill does nothing but make our society more brutish, less understanding, and less worthy.