Remember the "If Abortion Is Murder" thread?

[Plissken]

As I recall, the idea that someone would decide to start investigating miscarriages was thought of as laughable, at the time.

Here we go:

Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages

—By Jen Quraishi
| Wed Feb. 23, 2011 5:32 AM PST

It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin—who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"—has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.

I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass. The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages. Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally."[...]

motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/mis ... ty-georgia

[lucimay]

plissken?! *wave*

[deer of the dawn]

Well, that is just psycho. And I'm pro-life. What the world needs is compassion, not womb nazis.

[Orlion]

It's a symptom of the continuing polarization of American politics, coupled with the inability of some on both sides to be unable to compromise. We see it with all hot-button issues. 'Abortion is murder, I know this...somehow, and I won't consider any other possibilities because I'm right! The preacher told me so.'

Frankly, I think this representative ought to be impeached for incitement. We don't need this sort of conflict among the American people when we are all, presumably, on the brink of disaster.

[Cail]

Anyone bother to read the bill (oh yes, it's just a bill and it won't pass)? Anyone?

Didn't think so, 'cause there's nothing in there about giving the death penalty over a miscarriage. And there's certainly nothing in there about the mother having to prove her innocence in cases of miscarriage.

[I'm Murrin]

Yes, it's pretty clear on this not applying to miscarriage:

Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.

But it also says that if a miscarriage occurs when there is no medical personnel present at the time or immediately afterward then an investigation has to be carried out into the death.


Most of the bill seems to be aimed at showing that the state has the right to decide for itself whether or not abortion is murder.

The definition they give that an embryo has full human rights from conception, and the possible implication made in the bill that embryos are in fact citizens of the state ("The act of prenatal murder is contrary to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state and to the state itself and is illegal in this state in all instances"), is the problematic part. If they claim an embryo has citizenship rights, that has further implications. If they claim rather that the harm is to other citizens and society as a whole, then they need to consider the cases where the continuation of a pregnancy is provably harmful to the mother, either physically or psychologically.


I'd note that defining it this way also technically makes the morning after pill illegal.

[Cail]

For the record, the investigations are carried out by the medical examiner's office, not the police. Basically all it means is that an autopsy is performed in a few cases.

[Holsety]

Anyone bother to read the bill (oh yes, it's just a bill and it won't pass)? Anyone?

Cail,
I surely remember you being a "state's rights" man at some point...

Anyway, this bill is just the position of "pro life no matter what" carried to its logical extreme. The question is, will the people of Georgia be cruel enough to allow it to be enforced once they realize it is on the books?

[Cail]

Anyone bother to read the bill (oh yes, it's just a bill and it won't pass)? Anyone?

Cail,
I surely remember you being a "state's rights" man at some point...

Still am. And?

Anyway, this bill is just the position of "pro life no matter what" carried to its logical extreme. The question is, will the people of Georgia be cruel enough to allow it to be enforced once they realize it is on the books?

Not so much, and I'm unclear as to how enforcing it would be cruel.

[Zarathustra]

plissken?! *wave*

I second that.

Good to see you around, Plissken.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

How does life begin at conception? Isn't it merely continued? BTW, supposing somehow this would pass, the legislative rationale that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear Roe v. Wade nor does it have jurisdiction to hear matters related to this case is assuredly, absolutely, indubitably a recipe for slam dunk unconstitutionalality in the courts. I can't see it getting past a district judge. Whoever proposed this law is a cretin of the lowest order.

[Cail]

Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, and one that SCOTUS had no business making. I would argue that there's no rational argument that life begins at any time other than conception, and that there's no logical escape from the fact that abortion is murder. In fact, I've argued those two points for quite some time.

But that's not what the R v. W decision was about. It was about a right to privacy that doesn't exist, and it was about creating a special class of parent that men can never be. There's so much wrong with this decision (which has been discussed here for years) that it's become a bad joke.

But go back to the actual bill that Pliss linked, it's nothing other than codifying that SCOTUS had no standing to make the decision they did (and that's correct, they didn't), and that according to their legislature, life begins at conception and is therefore accorded the legal protection(s) that all humans have.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I'll hazard the issue of life beginning at conception first. Are gametes somehow not "life" or "alive"? Because if they are alive, life is the continuation of an unbroken chain rather than begun at a discrete moment.

[Cail]

I'll hazard the issue of life beginning at conception first. Are gametes somehow not "life" or "alive"? Because if they are alive, life is the continuation of an unbroken chain rather than begun at a discrete moment.

They're not human life. When egg is fertilized by sperm, new human life is created and therefore deserving of constitutional protections.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I'll hazard the issue of life beginning at conception first. Are gametes somehow not "life" or "alive"? Because if they are alive, life is the continuation of an unbroken chain rather than begun at a discrete moment.

They're not human life. When egg is fertilized by sperm, new human life is created and therefore deserving of constitutional protections.

I see no basis for the assertion that gametes do not represent "human life." They are clearly living human cells.

Perhaps you are relying on the idea of function or viability to escape the dignity accorded to gametes with your initial formula (already subtly changed to "new human life"). That, however, makes the zygote subject to these selfsame issues. Which suggests that "new human life" is an emergent property of a developing cluster of cells rather than a moment where God strikes the womb with a thunderbolt and says 'let there be life'.

[Cail]

I'll hazard the issue of life beginning at conception first. Are gametes somehow not "life" or "alive"? Because if they are alive, life is the continuation of an unbroken chain rather than begun at a discrete moment.

They're not human life. When egg is fertilized by sperm, new human life is created and therefore deserving of constitutional protections.

I see no basis for the assertion that gametes do not represent "human life." They are clearly living human cells.

Perhaps you are relying on the idea of function or viability to escape the dignity accorded to gametes with your initial formula (already subtly changed to "new human life"). That, however, makes the zygote subject to these selfsame issues. Which suggests that "new human life" is an emergent property of a developing cluster of cells rather than a moment where God strikes the womb with a thunderbolt and says 'let there be life'.

Several hundred pages have been devoted to the explanation of everyone's position(s) on this issue. I have no interest in further discussing this with you until you've done your homework, nor do I have any interest in playing childish semantic games, nor do I have any interest in discussing/debating the involvement (or non-involvement) of any god or God in the process.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Cail, if you don't want to have a conversation then simply don't have one. As it stands, you engaged me on the issues, I responded with some elementary Socratic repartee, then you blew up and ran away, hurling insults as you departed. If you're happy with that, then so am I.

[Cail]

Cail, if you don't want to have a conversation then simply don't have one. As it stands, you engaged me on the issues, I responded with some elementary Socratic repartee, then you blew up and ran away, hurling insults as you departed. If you're happy with that, then so am I.

No, that's not at all what happened. You've done nothing since you're returned other than display a hard on towards me. I'm not taking your bait.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Look, Cail, I responded to the thread with some ontological questions about the nature of life addressed to no one. You appeared to take them up. How am I baiting you in any of that? Cail ain't the great white whale, man.

[Cail]

Look, Cail, I responded to the thread with some ontological questions about the nature of life addressed to no one. You appeared to take them up. How am I baiting you in any of that? Cail ain't the great white whale, man.

Indeed, how are you?