• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.
Click to expand...
This. If you have a ban at 10 weeks you need to show what's different about a 10-week fetus than a 9-week fetus.
Click to expand...
That is my point - biology plays a part. Just like a dog is not biologically a human person. The notion that a law or legal standard necessarily does or should stand outside of scientific fact is nonsense.
 
Also, jurisdictions that prohibit murder don't prohibit it based on 'personhood', at least not that I've seen. Some people make the philosophical argument that great apes can be non-human persons, and that some humans (such as those in a persistent vegetative state) can be human non-persons. Yet the killing of a great ape is not murder in any jurisdiction.
 
Metaphor said:
Also, jurisdictions that prohibit murder don't prohibit it based on 'personhood', at least not that I've seen. Some people make the philosophical argument that great apes can be non-human persons, and that some humans (such as those in a persistent vegetative state) can be human non-persons. Yet the killing of a great ape is not murder in any jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Kind of a contradiction there. If I shoot a dog and kill it, I have not committed murder and won't be charged with murder however much the dog's owner might think of the dog as a family member. If I killed a gorilla with a vocabulary of 120 words, I would not be charged with murder--the gorilla is not human, is not a person. I could be charged with any number of crimes in either case but murder is not one of them.
 
Toni said:
Metaphor said:
Also, jurisdictions that prohibit murder don't prohibit it based on 'personhood', at least not that I've seen. Some people make the philosophical argument that great apes can be non-human persons, and that some humans (such as those in a persistent vegetative state) can be human non-persons. Yet the killing of a great ape is not murder in any jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Kind of a contradiction there. If I shoot a dog and kill it, I have not committed murder and won't be charged with murder however much the dog's owner might think of the dog as a family member. If I killed a gorilla with a vocabulary of 120 words, I would not be charged with murder--the gorilla is not human, is not a person. I could be charged with any number of crimes in either case but murder is not one of them.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the contradiction is. I started the post saying jurisdictions don't prohibit killing people based on 'personhood'.
 
Metaphor said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.
Click to expand...
This. If you have a ban at 10 weeks you need to show what's different about a 10-week fetus than a 9-week fetus.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a 20 week fetus and a 21 week fetus? Or a 36 week fetus and a 37 week one? What's the difference between a 17 year and 364 day year old, and an 18 year old? The law must make cutoff decisions all the time.
Click to expand...
But there's some justification for them.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Metaphor said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.
Click to expand...
This. If you have a ban at 10 weeks you need to show what's different about a 10-week fetus than a 9-week fetus.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a 20 week fetus and a 21 week fetus? Or a 36 week fetus and a 37 week one? What's the difference between a 17 year and 364 day year old, and an 18 year old? The law must make cutoff decisions all the time.
Click to expand...
But there's some justification for them.
Click to expand...
What's the 'scientific' justification for 18 to be the age of majority in many jurisdictions?
 
Metaphor said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Metaphor said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.
Click to expand...
This. If you have a ban at 10 weeks you need to show what's different about a 10-week fetus than a 9-week fetus.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a 20 week fetus and a 21 week fetus? Or a 36 week fetus and a 37 week one? What's the difference between a 17 year and 364 day year old, and an 18 year old? The law must make cutoff decisions all the time.
Click to expand...
But there's some justification for them.
Click to expand...
What's the 'scientific' justification for 18 to be the age of majority in many jurisdictions?
Click to expand...
You must mean “maturity,” not “majority.”
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Metaphor said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Metaphor said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.
Click to expand...
This. If you have a ban at 10 weeks you need to show what's different about a 10-week fetus than a 9-week fetus.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between a 20 week fetus and a 21 week fetus? Or a 36 week fetus and a 37 week one? What's the difference between a 17 year and 364 day year old, and an 18 year old? The law must make cutoff decisions all the time.
Click to expand...
But there's some justification for them.
Click to expand...
What's the 'scientific' justification for 18 to be the age of majority in many jurisdictions?
Click to expand...
You must mean “maturity,” not “majority.”
Click to expand...
No, I mean the age of majority.
en.wikipedia.org

Age of majority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Now, porn, also. Unfortunately, I don't have the URL. (A bill to repeal section 230 protection for porn.)
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Now, porn, also. Unfortunately, I don't have the URL. (A bill to repeal section 230 protection for porn.)
Click to expand...
While it might be possible, albeit monumentally stupid, to drive the porn industry offshore, it most certainly isn't possible to legislate to eliminate easy access to porn for any American with an internet connection.

At least, not without effectively eliminating the entire internet.
 
ZiprHead said:
Porn? What's porn? :cool:
Click to expand...
Some sort of insider trading thing, isn't it? I've never been clear on the details, but I recall former president Trump was under some criticism for making illegal payments to a porn broker of some kind. Stoney and Daniels, something like that?
 
Texas Lawmakers Plan to Further Decimate Abortion Rights - "All Texas clinics have halted abortion care, but the anti-abortion movement says its work isn’t over."

"Performing an abortion in Texas is now a felony punishable by up to life in prison."

One might expect Texas anti-abortionists to be celebrating, but...
“We were concerned that people would assume the movement has accomplished everything, that our work here is done,” John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, told The Intercept. “But we have spent the last six months articulating that even with Roe overturned, there is still a lot we need to do in Texas. Thankfully, that’s been completely well received by the Republican Party of Texas.”

...
“After Roe and after the midterms, we have even more space in the room and more focus to build a truly pro-life culture in this state,” Seago said. “This is the first session after Roe has been overturned, so it’s really important that we take decisive action now to address all the lingering and significant challenges that remain for the movement.”

...
While lawmakers have until March to file bills for the 140-day session, early plans discussed among Republicans include efforts to expand the power of local district attorneys to prosecute abortion providers in counties across the state; penalize online groups that help Texans receive abortion medication; criminally punish companies that financially support out-of-state abortion travel; and other measures that would prevent patients from crossing state lines for care. Often at the forefront of modeling extreme anti-abortion measures, Texas may offer a glimpse of what other states can expect.

...
Seeing the success of the bounty-style strategy, some GOP lawmakers are hoping to employ that private enforcement scheme to prevent Texans from accessing care out of state — as outlined in a letter drafted in July — by allowing any citizen to sue someone who assists an abortion patient pay for travel. That could also apply to anyone who reimburses the costs associated with out-of-state abortions, even in states where the procedure remains legal.
Click to expand...
After completely suppressing abortions in their state, that's what is left: abortions outside of their state.
 
Limitations on travel would devastate Texans seeking abortions, who are completely dependent on out-of-state care. After SB 8 went into effect, nearly 1,400 residents were fleeing Texas for the procedure each month, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project. That figure has likely increased since the state’s trigger law came into play. Research from the Guttmacher Institute shows that Texans are not just traveling to neighboring states, but also making long treks to the coasts, as surrounding clinics experience wait times due to an influx of patients.
Click to expand...
Then the sort of politicians who often seem to think that anything goes when it's a business leader or a business management that does it.
A group of Texas Republicans, many of whom are part of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, have already set their sights on companies that have expressed support for patient travel. In May, the contingent of Republicans threatened Lyft CEO Logan Green with “swift and decisive action” if the ridesharing company failed to rescind its policy to pay for the travel expenses of Texas abortion patients. They similarly threatened local law firm Sidley Austin with criminal prosecution and the disbarment of its partners for its pledge to reimburse employees for “abortion-related travel and, if necessary, related legal-defense expenses.”

The letters were a preview of potential legislative plans: Fourteen GOP lawmakers have vowed to introduce bills in the coming session that would ban corporations from conducting business in Texas if they offer to pay for abortions in states where the procedure is legal. Lawmakers have promised to “impose additional civil and felony criminal sanctions” on executives whose companies provide employees with abortion-related financial support. Republicans also hope to allow Texas shareholders of publicly traded companies to sue executives for paying for abortion care. While these aggressive measures remain to be filed, a bill that would eliminate tax breaks for companies that assist with abortion travel costs and another that would prohibit governmental entities from helping with logistical support have already been introduced.

Texas abortion funds that assist low-income Texans with out-of-state care have battled intense intimidation by the same lawmakers.

...
Freedom Caucus member state Rep. Matt Shaheen has already filed a string of bills seeking to stymie access to medication abortion by requiring, among other things, that out-of-state physicians who provide telehealth services to Texans register with state agencies and comply with all Texas laws.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom