Print

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

[TA]

The law is fucked up, but I don't think the distinction that MCE wants to make is.

Her "distinction" is that method matters to a cluster of cells that does not feel pain or have any ability to reason, or that it should matter to us. If there were a way to induce a miscarriage that had no more risk than an abortion, what in the world would be a credible objection? If the relative risk is the concern, then why not discuss reasonable policies to advance that goal, rather than drawing a meaningless line in the sand?

Getting your abortion from someone who purports to be a state-licensed doctor but who is in fact not - like even if the doctor has the nurse do it - is also murder, under this scheme.  It's actually grounds for the death penalty since you're in a conspiracy and paying someone to commit the homicide for you.  The method is actually completely irrelevant in the bill.  If your doctor tells you to drink bleach, it's not murder anymore.

             210           76-7-301.  Definitions.
             211          As used in this part:
             212          (1) (a) "Abortion" means:
             213          (i) the intentional termination or attempted termination of human pregnancy after
             214      implantation of a fertilized ovum[, and includes any and all procedures undertaken to kill a
             215      live unborn child and includes all procedures undertaken to produce a miscarriage.] through a
             216      medical procedure carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction
             217      of a physician;
             218          (ii) the intentional killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child through a medical
             219      procedure carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a
             220      physician; or
             221          (iii) the intentional causing or attempted causing of a miscarriage through a medical
             222      procedure carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a
             223      physician.
             224          (b) "Abortion" does not include:
             225          (i) removal of a dead unborn child[.];
             226          (ii) removal of an ectopic pregnancy; or
             227          (iii) the killing or attempted killing of an unborn child without the consent of the
             228      pregnant woman, unless:
             229          (A) the killing or attempted killing is done through a medical procedure carried out by
             230      a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician; and
             231          (B) the physician is unable to obtain the consent due to a medical emergency.

[Misha]

to me it basically sounds like MCE is ok with an amputation at the hospital but thinks you should not be allowed to chop your hand off with a meat cleaver in your kitchen.


anyway, all the points about this law affecting accidents etc. have already been made and I agree with them. I think it should be legal to do whatever to yourself and don't give a shit about unwanted zygotes but i also think that driving an hour or two to get an abortion isn't actually that brutal a situation.

[TA]

to me it basically sounds like MCE is ok with an amputation at the hospital but thinks you should not be allowed to chop your hand off with a meat cleaver in your kitchen.


anyway, all the points about this law affecting accidents etc. have already been made and I agree with them. I think it should be legal to do whatever to yourself and don't give a shit about unwanted zygotes but i also think that driving an hour or two to get an abortion isn't actually that brutal a situation.

Okay now suppose you don't have a car.

[François]

The law is broken and wrong, and what little nugget of sense there is at its source will cause it to backfire in spectacularly gruesome ways. I agree on this.

That little nugget of sense, however, is that it is reasonable to encourage abortions to be performed under qualified medical supervision rather than through artisanal methods, because there are ways to do this that are significantly better than others. Criminalizing the 14 year old girl who drinks bleach because she has no way (socially or otherwise) to get a sensible abortion is an insane way to go about this, but you can't argue that if such a practice was somehow eliminated the world wouldn't be a better place. The stupid law isn't the solution, but I honestly can't look at a sentiment that wants to eradicate the coat hanger, the knitting needle and the gut punch, and judge it abominable (as long as this sentiment comes with a willingness to increase and facilitate access to the safest methods of abortion we can devise, of course).

If there were a way to induce a miscarriage that had no more risk than an abortion, what in the world would be a credible objection?

I don't think there would be a meaningful one.

[Hraedon]

anyway, all the points about this law affecting accidents etc. have already been made and I agree with them. I think it should be legal to do whatever to yourself and don't give a shit about unwanted zygotes but i also think that driving an hour or two to get an abortion isn't actually that brutal a situation.

TA's response is right on the money, and now assume that missing the minimum two days of work required (clinics don't accept walk-ins and require a waiting period in Utah) means that keeping your job is now an issue. The blindness to these issues astounds me.

That little nugget of sense, however, is that it is reasonable to encourage abortions to be performed under qualified medical supervision rather than through artisanal methods, because there are ways to do this that are significantly better than others. Criminalizing the 14 year old girl who drinks bleach because she has no way (socially or otherwise) to get a sensible abortion is an insane way to go about this, but you can't argue that if such a practice was somehow eliminated the world wouldn't be a better place. The stupid law isn't the solution, but I honestly can't look at a sentiment that wants to eradicate the coat hanger, the knitting needle and the gut punch, and judge it abominable (as long as this sentiment comes with a willingness to increase and facilitate access to the safest methods of abortion we can devise, of course).

I'm all for making abortion legal and safe. My issue is that these sorts of asinine laws are counterproductive, and I would further disagree that they are designed to somehow make things safer. All indications from this law in particular and these sorts of "movements" in general are that the real goal is to punish poor women for daring to have sex.

My position re: miscarriage is that since we are denying these women reasonable access to the methods that are safe, it is insane to criminalize the few alternatives that they have left. The fact that it is additionally pointless just makes these sorts of laws even less defensible.

[NexAdruin]

I'm too big a lazy fuck to read 5 pages of you guys arguing with MCE, but I will say this:

My problem with the law is that it is likely to put away innocent women who were not trying to trigger a miscarriage. It is better that 100 criminals should walk free than 1 innocent person be convicted.

A woman should not drink bleach in an attempt at a back-alley abortion (and, in fact, this is part of the reason why abortions are constitutionally legal nationwide!), but if she does it shouldn't prompt a witch hunt against every woman who loses her child.

Sorry if this has already been said.

[TA]

I think it can be universally agreed that no woman should have to drink bleach in an attempt at a back-alley abortion.  The point of contention seems to be what to do when there isn't an alternative.  Utah seems to have decided on "Charge them with murder." and some people seem to be agreeing with that, based on a distaste for back-alley abortions and some massively flawed assumptions.  I'm saying "Under no circumstance charge them with a crime, and if you want to stop them from doing it then don't make it their only alternative."

[Guild]

The bible says that until the age of cognitive reasoning (an age which can vary by individual) a human soul is pure and therefore goes to heaven by default.

I will never vote on the abortion issue in any legal forum (yes I have excuses not to vote on almost all issues). I can't fathom what it's like to be a girl, and I wouldn't presume to tell one how to use her own body. The pregnancy might be malignant to her own welfare. Perhaps she would be an unfit mother.

Surely God, in his infinite wisdom, would not damn a soul to hell for using the body He gave us to enjoy ourselves in unprotected fornication. Show me where in the bible it says 'no sex before marriage.' The ten commandments has a line: Covet not thy neighbor's wife, nor any of his property. Marriage is a bond between people, and the bible itself has only two references to it, both of them allegorical, comparing one's journey toward God to a marriage between a man and God.

John Calvin wrote that marriage is not a sacrament: it is neither holy nor of interest to God. Marriage is therefore a church and state affair. Writing those words may have set into motion the most cataclysmic series of religion-based law passings the LGBT community has ever faced in the form of USA legislature agin their lifestyle.

So if there's nothing in the bible about marriage, there can be nothing in the bible about sex outside of marriage (since the bible refuses to define marriage) and therefore it cannot be a sin to abort a child, since children are the inevitable result of sex. In fact, I suspect God foresaw our own technology reaching the point of puzzling out some of these mysteries.

I expect my great-grandchildren to live for several millenia, for example.

All this reasoning is probably flawed, but I'm standing behind it until I see the flaw. As far as I'm aware, the pro-lifers' objections would vanish if God appeared in the clouds and said, "It's O.K. to have abortions!"

[NexAdruin]

Well, I went and glanced through the topic anyway, because at 1:00am I've got nothing better to do.

I will say that a significant difference between a doctor performing an abortion and falling down some stairs is that one will end the pregnancy and the other is just as likely to result in a deformed baby, which is cruel in and of itself. I don't know if that is why MCE doesn't like back-alley methods, but it seems like a good reason to dislike them to me.

Now, in a way I can see this as reckless endangerment charge, even if the fetus isn't considered living yet. But reckless endangerment isn't a capital punishment kind of crime.

If the justice system could definitively prove when someone was trying to end a pregnancy through such methods versus when someone had an accident during some extremely bad morning sickness, then I'd be all for punishing the people (though not for murder or attempted murder). And the reason that I would be for punishing these people is that they do have an alternative to drinking bleach: carrying out the pregnancy. Unless the abortion is absolutely necessary for the well being of the mother, then they should pursue whatever legal, safe ways are available. I understand that in an ideal world a legal, safe abortion clinic would be on every corner, but as long as that is not happening then women are just going to have to deal with the laws of reality.

[Hraedon]

I will say that a significant difference between a doctor performing an abortion and falling down some stairs is that one will end the pregnancy and the other is just as likely to result in a deformed baby, which is cruel in and of itself. I don't know if that is why MCE doesn't like back-alley methods, but it seems like a good reason to dislike them to me.

Now, in a way I can see this as reckless endangerment charge, even if the fetus isn't considered living yet. But reckless endangerment isn't a capital punishment kind of crime.

If the choice is a safe abortion or dangerous, shady methods, then the obvious selection is abortion. If—as is the case in Utah—your options are all unrealistic/terrible (oh I get to lose my job or carry to term a baby I can't care for), then it is easy to reach the conclusion that a risky miscarriage is your only credible option. Consequences to the baby are tragic, but the better answer isn't to uselessly criminalize that behavior. Instead, address why it is that women are seeking alternatives.

If the justice system could definitively prove when someone was trying to end a pregnancy through such methods versus when someone had an accident during some extremely bad morning sickness, then I'd be all for punishing the people (though not for murder or attempted murder). And the reason that I would be for punishing these people is that they do have an alternative to drinking bleach: carrying out the pregnancy. Unless the abortion is absolutely necessary for the well being of the mother, then they should pursue whatever legal, safe ways are available. I understand that in an ideal world a legal, safe abortion clinic would be on every corner, but as long as that is not happening then women are just going to have to deal with the laws of reality.

If you're going to condemn women to be slaves to the thing growing inside of them, then there is no reason to allow abortion at all: either women have bodily autonomy or they don't. If we aren't going to allow women to control their own bodies legally, we have no right to be shocked when they (even if not legally) pursue whatever options are left to them. Telling women to essentially suck it up is fantastically unhelpful.

[Saturn]

The bible says that until the age of cognitive reasoning (an age which can vary by individual) a human soul is pure and therefore goes to heaven by default.

Then where the fuck does that UNBAPTIZED BABIES GO TO PURGATORY thing come from?

I'd look it up myself, but I'm squeamish. How are abortions usually performed?

one method involves vacuuming the fetus out.

other methods are far less pleasant.

[Rico]

Telling women to essentially suck it up is fantastically unhelpful.

one method involves vacuuming the fetus out

Jeez Hraedon make up your mind about which side you're on.

Re: Catholicism having crazy doctrine supported by non-Biblical references: Catholicism has crazy doctrine supported by non-Biblical references.

Which I suppose is better than the Right-Wing version of "We have crazy doctrine AND we'll pretend it's in the Bible (and then print our own Biblical translation with those parts in it)" which Guild summarized fairly accurately.

[Friend]

The bible says that until the age of cognitive reasoning (an age which can vary by individual) a human soul is pure and therefore goes to heaven by default.

Then where the fuck does that UNBAPTIZED BABIES GO TO PURGATORY thing come from?

Yeah doesn't this contradict with the whole "inherent vice" idea?

[LaserBeing]

I thought they retconned Limbo

[JDigital]

If you have the right to abortion you have the right to induce a miscarriage, surely.

Whether you should have that right is a different debate.

[François]

The bible says that until the age of cognitive reasoning (an age which can vary by individual) a human soul is pure and therefore goes to heaven by default.

Then where the fuck does that UNBAPTIZED BABIES GO TO PURGATORY thing come from?

Yeah doesn't this contradict with the whole "inherent vice" idea?

Baptism wipes away the original sin, which is the ye shall be as gods, knowledge-of-good-and-evil thing. The sin ain't their personal fault though, so unbaptized babies get boredom instead of pain.

I thought they retconned Limbo

Yeah, if you're the faggoty froofroo modern christian type.

more seriously:

If you have the right to abortion you have the right to induce a miscarriage, surely.

If the process of inducing miscarriage is unsafe, you kind of enter the "is it society's job to keep you from cutting yourself?" territory, with an added element of "it's hard to believe someone doesn't know putting a razor to one's wrists will hurt them, but there's probably some back-asswards unfortunate redneck girl who's never been told that putting a coat hanger up her babychute might kill her".

If it's safe though, then it's nobody else's business.

[sei]

Show me where in the bible it says 'no sex before marriage.' The ten commandments has a line: Covet not thy neighbor's wife, nor any of his property. Marriage is a bond between people, and the bible itself has only two references to it, both of them allegorical, comparing one's journey toward God to a marriage between a man and God.

John Calvin wrote that marriage is not a sacrament: it is neither holy nor of interest to God. Marriage is therefore a church and state affair. Writing those words may have set into motion the most cataclysmic series of religion-based law passings the LGBT community has ever faced in the form of USA legislature agin their lifestyle.

So if there's nothing in the bible about marriage, there can be nothing in the bible about sex outside of marriage (since the bible refuses to define marriage) and therefore it cannot be a sin to abort a child, since children are the inevitable result of sex. In fact, I suspect God foresaw our own technology reaching the point of puzzling out some of these mysteries.

I expect my great-grandchildren to live for several millenia, for example.

All this reasoning is probably flawed, but I'm standing behind it until I see the flaw. As far as I'm aware, the pro-lifers' objections would vanish if God appeared in the clouds and said, "It's O.K. to have abortions!"

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 & 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Depends on which texts you consider to comprise the bible, though.

[Friend]

The bible says that until the age of cognitive reasoning (an age which can vary by individual) a human soul is pure and therefore goes to heaven by default.

Then where the fuck does that UNBAPTIZED BABIES GO TO PURGATORY thing come from?

Yeah doesn't this contradict with the whole "inherent vice" idea?

Baptism wipes away the original sin, which is the ye shall be as gods, knowledge-of-good-and-evil thing. The sin ain't their personal fault though, so unbaptized babies get boredom instead of pain.

Huh. I'd always learned that baptism was a symbolic gesture that was essentially a Christian's "coming out" to the world and isn't necessary to being "saved". For the second point, of course the sin isn't their personal fault, but if they get a free pass because it's not their fault, doesn't that kinda negate the whole point of original sin?

[François]

The original sin was so bad that it reflects on the entire human race forever, because everyone's a direct blood descendant of those who committed it; that we live in a world of death, pain and labor instead of Eden is our continued penance. The act of baptism can apparently mean a lot of things depending on denomination though, so you're probably not wrong either.

[NexAdruin]

Words

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.

Edit: Oh, look.