https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/victorian-liberal-bernie-finn-praying-for-abortion-ban/101041168 — Streetlight

Looks like Finn is lying, or misrepresenting at best. There aren't any baby killings. I thought there was something about "not bearing false witness" (or however it went) in his book?

It's quite simple. Insofar as men are 100% responsible for all pregnancies, if a woman falls pregnant and carries to term, the man takes 100% responsibility for the child.

The abortion debate would stop tomorrow. — Streetlight

By not being able to impregnate women, well, unless they plan to, with them.
Problem solved, no more abortions. — jorndoe

Sorry that was a premature ejection of the post.

I can agree with that. Every male child that turns 12 gets a compulsory tube-tie, and if they refuse they face whatever penalties it is misogynists are so keen to impose on women. Jail terms, fines, the lot.

Insofar as men are 100% responsible for all pregnancies... — Streetlight

Terrible logic in those tweets, and also ignores the fact that there can be unwanted pregnancies after a woman wants her partner to not wear a condom and to finish inside of her.

Sounds like abdication of responsibility to me.

Sounds like abdication of responsibility to me. — Streetlight

A shared responsibility isn't an abdication of responsibility.

Let me try again.

It's quite simple. Insofar as men are 100% responsible for all pregnancies, if a woman falls pregnant and carries to term, the man takes 100% responsibility for the child.

The abortion debate would stop tomorrow. — Streetlight

By not being able to impregnate women, well, unless they plan to, with them.
Problem solved, no more abortions. :up: — jorndoe

Neither of these ideas, I believe, could resolve the problem. It appears like the problem which leads to a never ending abortion debate, is that many people do not understand the true reality of "failure".

If we represent the birth of a child as the successful end product of the sexual act, then a true representation would show failure as far more prominent than success. Further, if we proceed toward representing this as a designed process then we need to allow that failure is essential to the design. The prominence of failure is what renders the individual successes as something special.

Religious zealots who refuse to recognize the reality of failure as an essential part of the design, have no capacity to understand evolution and the very important information which the reality of failure gives us concerning the nature of the design.

When good is measured only by success, with complete disregard and disrespect for those who have failed, then we have a world full of uncaring, uncompassionate people who view mistake as unforgivable.

I'm being facetious.

Any conversation that doesn't involve simply putting a women in charge of her own body is not to be taken seriously.

Any conversation that doesn't involve simply putting a women in charge of her own body is not to be taken seriously. — Streetlight

I agree with that.

:100: But good luck convincing anyone who matters of that. Meanwhile, I fight despair with gallows humour.

In my view, people are going to have sex no matter what. — Paulm12

This is the real problem, that someone somewhere may be having fun, and not paying for it by producing another wage slave.

How is the right to privacy grounds for right to abortion? — Agent Smith

This article may help:

"The constitutional right to privacy protects the liberty of people to make certain crucial decisions regarding their well-being without government coercion, intimidation, or interference. Such crucial decisions may concern religious faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death. The federal Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to make these decisions according to their own conscience and beliefs. The government is not constitutionally permitted to regulate such deeply personal matters."

I am in your debt, sir/ma'am!

Here's food for thought!

The justices solidly reaffirmed that core right in 1992, reinforcing the principle that states could not interfere with a woman's ability to obtain an abortion before a fetus could survive out the womb, at about 23 weeks. Even justices who had criticized Roe said it was important to adhere to the precedent, for institutional reasons and because, quite simply, Americans had come to rely on it. — CNN

Our findings show that more babies now survive being born too soon than ever before, which is testament to the highly-skilled and dedicated staff in our neonatal services. — Professor Neil Marlow, an MRC-funded academic at University College Londons Institute for Womens Health and a co-author of both papers

:chin:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

I can sense a trend here: The gestational age at which fetuses can survive outside the womb has decreased over the past century or so and is decreasing in step with advances in (bio)technology. It appears that a time will come when even a zygote will be viable ex-utero. What then? Abortion would immediately have to be made illegal, oui?

Science seems to be sleeping with the enemy, religion, at least in the eyes of a section of their fanbase, pro-choicers! Pro-choice is going to become obsolete in (say) another century (conservative estimate), but only if they don't reinvent themselves in a big way. :joke:

I can sense a trend here: The gestational age at which fetuses can survive outside the womb has decreased over the past century or so and is decreasing in step with advances in (bio)technology. It appears that a time will come when even a zygote will be viable ex-utero. What then? Abortion would immediately have to be made illegal, oui? — Agent Smith

If at some future point, it becomes possible to artificially gestate a zygote, then abortions will be obsolete if the pro-lifers are willing to pay for the gestation service (can't be cheap), and to divide up the resulting children among themselves to be raised.

I'm alluding to a general problem I have with many pro-lifers: it's easy express moral outrage at abortion, while shrugging off the fact that the alternative has life-altering consequences for the mother who gives birth ("that's their problem, but I'll pray for them").

Pro-lifers are also pro-voter suppression (and pro-death penalty). Why? It's all about demographic control. Reproductive freedom is deliberately exercised in the US by more White working / middle class women than by non-white women and contributes to accelerating America's looming so-called "demographic crisis". The "evangelical" pro-life movement, IMHO, always has been about doing "the good lord's" work of Making Apartheid Great Again. :shade:

Four perjurious, pro-life SC Justices, appointed by 2 GOP Presidents who both lost the popular vote in their respective elections (one starting two unpaid-for, fraudelent, failed wars of opportunity and the other Impeached twice while in the pocket of Russia & Saudi Arabia), form the basis of a judicial cabal (on the verge of) stripping citizens of established Constitutional Rights (i.e. protections) for the first time in US history, aided and abetted by a fifth perjurious, pro-insurrectionist joke-of-a-Justice.

Any conversation that doesn't involve simply putting a women in charge of her own body is not to be taken seriously. — Streetlight

:up:

Pro-lifers are also pro-voter suppression (and pro-death penalty). Why? It's all about demographic control. — 180 Proof

I'm sympathetic to your view, but it sounds almost like a conspiracy theory. I'd say it's about power: Republicans latched onto the Jerry Falwell inspired "pro-life" movement because it was low hanging fruit for a large block of voters, and it conflicts with none of their principles (few as they are). It's been a successful strategy.

If you follow the link to old post included (demographic crisis) with a further embedded link to an older thread (re: race war) you'll see that my argument is not about a "conspiracy" – hidden criminality – but a sketched examination of the open, explicit, trend – trajectory — of American history. I suspect most Americans over 40 deny or misrecognize this ruthless power-play for demographic control because the prospect is so retrograde and disturbing and frightening in its societally destablizing implications (like e.g. global warming, which many still deny too). It's a "theory", however, that fits the political, economic, social and cultural facts of the last half century in America too well and coherently to be without substantial merit both overall and in many details. Follow the links – the reasoning – several layers deep (i.e. "take the red pill, ... stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes") and explain away my conclusions if you can. The imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade is only one component in the culmination of this, IMO, 50-60 year long reactionary, ethno-nationalist movement.

It appears that a time will come when even a zygote will be viable ex-utero. What then? Abortion would immediately have to be made illegal, oui? — Agent Smith

I don't think so, pregnancy will then be obsolete. The only babies being produced will then be designer (GM) babies. Human abortion will be enforced by the newly derived species, resulting in the extinction of the human species.

The imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade is only one component in the culmination of this, IMO, 50-60 year long reactionary, ethno-nationalist movement. — 180 Proof

That sounds reasonable.

If at some future point, it becomes possible to artificially gestate a zygote, then abortions will be obsolete if the pro-lifers are willing to pay for the gestation service (can't be cheap), and to divide up the resulting children among themselves to be raised.

I'm alluding to a general problem I have with many pro-lifers: it's easy express moral outrage at abortion, while shrugging off the fact that the alternative has life-altering consequences for the mother who gives birth ("that's their problem, but I'll pray for them"). — Relativist

True that! That's been one of the sticking points in the issue. If you're going to be pro-life then you gotta go the whole nine yards - from conception to adulthood. In its current form, the anti-abortion camp's position boils down to caring for babies but not giving a rat's ass about their future well-being (happiness). I suggest the pro-choice movement look for teens/adults who lead miserable lives and give 'em a platform to voice their outrage - they would've preferred not to have been born and yet here they are, living in poverty, homeless, no future, etc.

Pro-lifers are also pro-voter suppression (and pro-death penalty). Why? It's all about demographic control. Reproductive freedom is more deliberately exercised in the US more by White working / middle class women than non-white women and contributes to accelerating America's looming so-called "demographic crisis" The "evangelical" pro-life movement, IMHO, always has been about "the good lord's" work of Making Apartheid Great Again. :shade:

Four pro-life SC Justices, appointed by 2 GOP Presidents who both lost the popular vote in their respective elections (one starting two unpaid-for, fraudelent, failed wars of opportunity and the other Impeached twice while in the pocket of Russia & Saudi Arabia), form the basis for a judicial cabal (on the verge of) stripping citizens of established Constitutional Rights (i.e. protections) for the first time in US history, aided and abetted by a fifth pro-insurrectionist joke-of-a-Justice. — 180 Proof

Crumbs! It's that bad, eh? :up:

I don't think so, pregnancy will then be obsolete. The only babies being produced will then be designer (GM) babies. Human abortion will be enforced by the newly derived species, resulting in the extinction of the human species — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I was thinking about that. Why would a woman want to carry the fetus in her uterus when it can do just as well in some kind of artificial womb? One reason for abortion accepted by even pro-lifers is danger to the mother and with artificial wombs, this goes out the window.

Termination of pregnancy would still be permissible in the eyes of pro-choicers if the baby's quality of life is compromised (severe birth defects, poverty, and so on).

My point was that the yardstick used for abortion is the ex-utero viability of the fetus is going to come back and bite women (in the ass) for the reasons I outlined in my last post.

Louisiana HB 813

If this passes then women can be charged with murder for using an IUD.

(7) "Person" includes a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.

***

(11) "Unborn child" means any an individual of the human species being from fertilization and implantation until birth

IUDs can either stop fertilization or the subsequent implantation. Because they've removed the "and implantation" part of the bill, if an IUD doesn't stop the fertilization, only the implantation, it counts as having killed an unborn child.

It also would seem to include fertilizations that occur in vitro and would eliminate fertilization procedures.

From this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/05/louisiana-abortion-bill-would-make-crime-murder/9656102002/ this appears to be a bill that just came out of committee, so I assume it has a long way to go (votes before both houses) before landing on the Governor's desk.

How normal is this?

(2) This state and its political subdivisions, and agents thereof, may disregard any part or whole of any federal court decision which purports to enjoin or void any provision of this Section.

F. Pursuant to the powers granted to the Legislature by Article X, Part III, of the Constitution of Louisiana, any judge of this state who purports to enjoin, stay, overrule, or void any provision of this Section shall be subject to impeachment or removal.

How normal is this? — Michael

It does have precedence in South Carolina's Nullification Act of 1832 stating it did not have to pay federal taxes on cotton exports. That didn't ultimately turn out well for South Carolina.

I did look through the bill, and it even includes provisions stating the Supreme Court precedent should not be considered.

What you have is just a very political bill that has limited likelihood of being passed that some legislator wants to wave around showing how defiant he is in defense of protecting babies' lives. If that law passed, it would be declared unconstitutional. A state can't declare its sovereignty. It would never be enforced and Louisiana wouldn't secede from the union (unfortunately) in order to defend that right.

If they were the badasses they pretend to be, they'd just start prosecuting abortions now and not wait on the Supreme Court. They'd also not be permitting gay weddings, but they do, meaning that they are compliant citizens regardless of wanting to appear rogue.

I did look through the bill, and it even includes provisions stating the Supreme Court precedent should not be considered. — Hanover

Not just precedent:

Without limiting prosecutorial discretion, this state and all political subdivisions of this state shall enforce the provisions of this Subpart without regard to the opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113(1973), and its judicial progeny, past and future...

Congress will pass a law shortly.

From what little I've read, unless they can somehow use the Commerce Clause as a justification, any federal law will be declared a violation of State rights.

And any federal law would just get repealed when the Republicans are next in power.

From what little I've read, unless they can somehow use the Commerce Clause as a justification, any federal law will be declared a violation of State rights. — Michael

Could be. It'll be a talking point for Democrats until they pass something that works. They'll probably start transport assistance for poor people, free hotel rooms and so on.

James Lee Burke, a writer who spent a great deal of time in Louisiana and writes of it and its people in his fiction, described it as a "fresh air mental asylum."

Women with money will be able to travel to the states to obtain abortions, poor women will not. — Relativist

No surprise here, wealthy women have the benefit of being able to afford sexual promiscuity without the downside of an undesired pregnancy. It is simply the case, as with virtually everything in life...wealthy people always have more options than the poor.

Poor women will just have to stick with what they can afford and settle with not getting randomly knocked up.