Question on the abortion bill, SB 1(ss)

[gregr]

Because it shows how the Pro-Life position can also be "reduced to absurdity," if you take it far enough. If abortion is murder, and the mom walks into the clinic and says "do it," there is no logical way to absolve her from responsibility. But, the Pro-Life movement knows this is a political loser for them. So just as the Pro-Abortion movement's "reductio absurdum" is killing children 60 seconds before or after birth, this is one of those logically-deducible arguments the true believers don't want to make. Removing criminality for the mother via statutory language is sorta like the State of New York repealing their gun law when it became apparent it was going to sink them.

I see it as similar to Vegans attacking the supply chain for meat production. Their ideology requires them to want to ban it, but they know that's a loser, politically. So they take a combination of lesser measures designed to alter the supply chain to make meat more expensive, hoping to reduce consumption in a way that doesn't bring down the political house on the full implications of their ideology.

There`s no absurdity in saving babies lives, and moms and abortionists ought to be held accountable.

 

[gregr]

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

No we do not, and I didn`t say, nor infer that we do. Laws need to be based on reason, but also grounded in reality. The reality is, something, someone dies in an abortion.

 

[Creedmoor]

No we do not, and I didn`t say, nor infer that we do. Laws need to be based on reason, but also grounded in reality. The reality is, something, someone dies in an abortion.

I wasn't infering anything, it was just.a question.
A bit idealistic and noble perhaps.
How do we pick who's reality?

 

[gregr]

I wasn't infering anything, it was just.a question.
A bit idealistic and noble perhaps.
How do we pick who's reality?

There`s only the one reality. There are those who aim to convince others that their deluded version of the world is reality, but c`mon, lucid adults don`t need reality explained to them.

 

[Creedmoor]

There`s only the one reality. There are those who aim to convince others that their deluded version of the world is reality, but c`mon, lucid adults don`t need reality explained to them.

Deluded version, geesh.
Have a good day.

 

[ljk]

There`s only the one reality. There are those who aim to convince others that their deluded version of the world is reality, but c`mon, lucid adults don`t need reality explained to them.

one reality is there are differences between ideology and reality. People's lives don't revolve around abortion, there are far more important issues effecting people's lives day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If she’s old enough to do the deed, she’s old enough to be charged as an adult

Admittedly this situation is exceedingly rare, but when she’s old enough to get pregnant but it was not her decision to do what is required to get that way, i.e. rape, incest, I have a big problem with charging mom solely because she’s “old enough to do the deed”. Further, and I’m going fully into conjecture here, if two kids figure out which “Slot B” his “Tab A” goes into, let’s say at 12 or 14 (that is to say, not an abuse situation, just kids experimenting inappropriately,) I cannot see charging either of them.

This does not mean I favor or want to see abortions. This means only that a solid, blanket policy without case by case exceptions is as wrong for this as a blanket homicide policy would be for adults, one which would have said that no matter the reason nor relevant facts, Eli Dicken and Kyle Rittenhouse both killed people, and so are guilty of murder…. We have to recognize that there WILL be times where as much as we don’t like it, and as evil as we find it to be, sometimes the lesser evil is not forcing her to carry a baby she had either no voluntary part of creating or was not of an age to make an appropriate decision.

Sometimes, it sucks but it’s true.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Shadow01]

Admittedly this situation is exceedingly rare, but when she’s old enough to get pregnant but it was not her decision to do what is required to get that way, i.e. rape, incest, I have a big problem with charging mom solely because she’s “old enough to do the deed”. Further, and I’m going fully into conjecture here, if two kids figure out which “Slot B” his “Tab A” goes into, let’s say at 12 or 14 (that is to say, not an abuse situation, just kids experimenting inappropriately,) I cannot see charging either of them.

This does not mean I favor or want to see abortions. This means only that a solid, blanket policy without case by case exceptions is as wrong for this as a blanket homicide policy would be for adults, one which would have said that no matter the reason nor relevant facts, Eli Dicken and Kyle Rittenhouse both killed people, and so are guilty of murder…. We have to recognize that there WILL be times where as much as we don’t like it, and as evil as we find it to be, sometimes the lesser evil is not forcing her to carry a baby she had either no voluntary part of creating or was not of an age to make an appropriate decision.

Sometimes, it sucks but it’s true.

Blessings,
Bill

Just because their young and experimenting doesn’t offer them a “get out of pregnancy “ free card either. Let them avoid charges by running the pregnancy to term.

to add, if a peron can have 2 charges for the death of a pregnant mother, I find it difficult to carve out exceptions for mothers that are willing to kill a heartbeat.

 

[Expat]

Remember Richard Mourdock....

 

[Hardscrable]

Just saw this on Fox News.com

 

[chipbennett]

This may be being discussed elsewhere, and if so, I ask that someone show me where. I know this is not a "gun" topic, but I don't know where else to ask.

In the bill, as published right now (8/6/22) I found this:



It seems to be saying that harm to the fetus is OK if her intent was to terminate the pregnancy, whether the defendant is the doc or the mom. To me, that sounds like it runs counter to the intent of the bill.

Anyone able to shed light on what I'm missing?

Thanks!
Blessings,
Bill

I assume that this section means:

1. Elective abortions are illegal
2. Committing the illegal act of elective abortion intentionally incurs no criminal liability
3. Otherwise killing an unborn human remains illegal, with any related criminal liability, as it did before.

 

[chipbennett]

Because it shows how the Pro-Life position can also be "reduced to absurdity," if you take it far enough. If abortion is murder, and the mom walks into the clinic and says "do it," there is no logical way to absolve her from responsibility. But, the Pro-Life movement knows this is a political loser for them. So just as the Pro-Abortion movement's "reductio absurdum" is killing children 60 seconds before or after birth, this is one of those logically-deducible arguments the true believers don't want to make. Removing criminality for the mother via statutory language is sorta like the State of New York repealing their gun law when it became apparent it was going to sink them.

I see it as similar to Vegans attacking the supply chain for meat production. Their ideology requires them to want to ban it, but they know that's a loser, politically. So they take a combination of lesser measures designed to alter the supply chain to make meat more expensive, hoping to reduce consumption in a way that doesn't bring down the political house on the full implications of their ideology.

So, basically, you're painting the pro-life position into a completely untenable, damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't box. Make elective abortion illegal and include criminal charges for the mother? The pro-life position just wants to punish vulnerable women. Make elective abortion illegal but exclude criminal charges for the mother? The pro-life position is just playing politics.

I don't want women thrown into prison. I do want elective abortions ended. The end game is saving the life of the unborn, not swelling prison roles with women who choose to seek elective abortion.

 

[amjindiana]

Because it shows how the Pro-Life position can also be "reduced to absurdity," if you take it far enough. If abortion is murder, and the mom walks into the clinic and says "do it," there is no logical way to absolve her from responsibility. But, the Pro-Life movement knows this is a political loser for them. So just as the Pro-Abortion movement's "reductio absurdum" is killing children 60 seconds before or after birth, this is one of those logically-deducible arguments the true believers don't want to make. Removing criminality for the mother via statutory language is sorta like the State of New York repealing their gun law when it became apparent it was going to sink them.

I see it as similar to Vegans attacking the supply chain for meat production. Their ideology requires them to want to ban it, but they know that's a loser, politically. So they take a combination of lesser measures designed to alter the supply chain to make meat more expensive, hoping to reduce consumption in a way that doesn't bring down the political house on the full implications of their ideology.

I get what you're saying, but at the same time I wonder if this is just a bandaid that needs to be ripped all the way off. I've had family member tell me for years that overturning Roe just wasn't possible because half the country wouldn't like it. Well looks like that was wrong. The day after there was a sizable pro-abortion crowd downtown at the courthouse raising hell over it, but I just smiled to myself knowing that in a couple weeks they'd get over it and learn to live with it.

My point is that even though it may seem crazy to charge the mother, once its law, people would get over it and learn to live with it.

 

[Shadow01]

And yet no one is approaching this from the view that a life is being denied a voice in this action. The child deserves a voice before any exception should be considered.

 

[DadSmith]

This bill does nothing if a Dr aborts a baby.

 

[gregr]

So, basically, you're painting the pro-life position into a completely untenable, damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't box. Make elective abortion illegal and include criminal charges for the mother? The pro-life position just wants to punish vulnerable women. Make elective abortion illegal but exclude criminal charges for the mother? The pro-life position is just playing politics.

I don't want women thrown into prison. I do want elective abortions ended. The end game is saving the life of the unborn, not swelling prison roles with women who choose to seek elective abortion.

It`s not the same thing, "wanting" to send women to prison, as, women going to prison for breaking the law and committing murder. There`s a difference, and a law minus Justice System enforcement isn`t a law, it`s just a recommendation.

 

[DadSmith]

It`s not the same thing, "wanting" to send women to prison, as, women going to prison for breaking the law and committing murder. There`s a difference, and a law minus Justice System enforcement isn`t a law, it`s just a recommendation.

That's exactly what this bill does. It's trying to pacify pro life conservatives in the state.
I doubt it slows abortions down in our state.

 

[gregr]

That's exactly what this bill does. It's trying to pacify pro life conservatives in the state.
I doubt it slows abortions down in our state.

If there are no criminal penalties, then why bother. Even when there are criminal penalties, we see that criminals still openly break the law. With no teeth, this "law" is then just a joke.

 

[DragonGunner]

That's exactly what this bill does. It's trying to pacify pro life conservatives in the state.
I doubt it slows abortions down in our state.

Time will tell. Last year 8100 abortions in IN. So we see how much it drops. I think most will just drive to IL, I’m sure the communists there will keep it legal. Watch for PP to open up the butcher shops right on the border down the state line.

 

[chipbennett]

That's exactly what this bill does. It's trying to pacify pro life conservatives in the state.
I doubt it slows abortions down in our state.

Except for the part where all abortions must be performed in a hospital. All abortion clinics will close - or, at least, cease to provide abortion procedures.