Question on the abortion bill, SB 1(ss)

[chipbennett]

Gavin Newsom needs to worry about his own state.

‘Indiana Doesn’t Own Your Body. You Do.’ | California's governor touts the state as abortion sanctuary on Indiana billboards​

‘Indiana Doesn’t Own Your Body. You Do.’ | California's governor touts the state as abortion sanctuary on Indiana billboards

The billboards, rented out by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, advertise the Golden State as a haven for abortion access in the wake of abortion bans and overturns.

www.wthr.com

Ironic, given how much the state of California deigns to own/control about your body, from cradle to grave.

 

[JEBland]

Going to the IN Supreme Court:

Two copies of the same article:

Indiana Supreme Court set to hear arguments in lawsuit challenging near-total abortion ban

Attorneys for abortion care providers and the state will argue the constitutionality of Indiana's near-total abortion ban before the state's highest court this week.

www.wfyi.org

Indiana Supreme Court to hear abortion ban challenge

Indiana’s abortion ban only allows the procedure if a pregnant person’s life or serious health is at risk, in some cases of lethal fetal anomalies and in some cases of rape or incest.

indianapublicmedia.org

A more in depth article regarding why state congressmen & women are holding off additional legislation:

Indiana lawmakers say they’re unlikely to pass new abortion legislation in 2023 - The Indiana Lawyer

Indiana’s top Republican lawmakers say they’re holding off on new abortion legislation in the 2023 legislative session — at least for now. But the future is less clear on tangential issues of mail-order abortion pills and contraception.

www.theindianalawyer.com

 

[freedomenthusiast100]

I'm wondering if this pertains to the few instances of legal abortions that will still be allowed. AKA, if the abortion is being performed to save the life of the mother but fails and results in a severely injured baby, the physician performing the abortion cannot be charged with anything because the abortion was deemed legal in the first place. Does that make sense?

No part of a philosophically unjustifiable abortion restriction makes sense. Unless the argument behind it is to deprive women of their bodily autonomy and place further strain on a society plagued with single parent households who are reliant on an already faltering welfare system. I kinda feel like women should have the right to healthcare and that women should decide the things that directly and almost exclusively affect women's bodies but hey...what do I know lol.

 

[freedomenthusiast100]

And you guys are absolutely entitled to your belief and wishes. I am as well, to mine.

Politically, that’s a non starter. It’s a fast way to turn our own base to the libs side, with all the emotional arguments we’ve all heard.

I don’t want to lose this fight because some Dem writes the ballot question to induce a particular answer and the media gins up support on that basis, as happened in Kansas.

Blessings,
Bill

Way to stir the pot man! lol Pretty excellent conversation to be honest.

 

[freedomenthusiast100]

Why would you not want a child murderer brought up on charges as an adult?

Because its not murder....or a child lol

 

[freedomenthusiast100]

Do we get good laws when emotions are involved to write those laws?

No we get oppression. Law is supposed to make all people equal before a higher code. Not set our society back 50 years in terms of social progress.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No we get oppression. Law is supposed to make all people equal before a higher code. Not set our society back 50 years in terms of social progress.

Name one other time in history when taking a being that is objectively a human (that is, an individual organism classified as homo sapiens) and saying that this being is not a "person" and thus does not deserve human rights, constituted "social progress."

I'll wait.

 

[chipbennett]

No part of a philosophically unjustifiable abortion restriction makes sense. Unless the argument behind it is to deprive women of their bodily autonomy and place further strain on a society plagued with single parent households who are reliant on an already faltering welfare system. I kinda feel like women should have the right to healthcare and that women should decide the things that directly and almost exclusively affect women's bodies but hey...what do I know lol.

Opposition to abortion has zero to do with the bodily autonomy of the mother, and everything to do with the bodily autonomy of the human being who is killed through abortion. Until basic, freshman high school-level understanding of biology is acknowledged in this discussion, no common ground will ever be found.

The 98.5% of abortions that are performed for purely elective reasons are not "healthcare".

But, there are other threads to debate abortion. This thread involves current Indiana state statute.

 

[chipbennett]

No we get oppression. Law is supposed to make all people equal before a higher code. Not set our society back 50 years in terms of social progress.

Is the person who's life is taken through abortion "equal"?

 

[chipbennett]

Name one other time in history when taking a being that is objectively a human (that is, an individual organism classified as homo sapiens) and saying that this being is not a "person" and thus does not deserve human rights, constituted "social progress."

I'll wait.

You're not going to get an answer to this. If you want to see the tired, rehashed arguments, appeal to emotion, straw men, and non sequiturs, see any of the current abortion threads.

 

[JEBland]

Article:

Indiana's top court weighing challenge to state abortion ban

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A top state lawyer on Thursday urged the Indiana Supreme Court to uphold the state’s Republican-backed abortion ban, even as the justices weighed whether they should decide its constitutionality before lower courts have fully considered the case.

apnews.com

News briefing:



Oral Arguments: