US Politics Thread

I'm With Stupid said:
Just reading the Wikipedia entry on it, it seems like it is opposed by the same people who would oppose restrictions to abortions, for the same reasons, and is basically an inconsistency in the law.

In the UK, the foetus itself isn't considered a person, but I think most countries with legal abortion will have heavy penalties for inducing a miscarriage outside of the rules that allow abortion. There is an additional law of Child Destruction that covers any baby that is unborn but viable to cover deaths of babies that are almost born, and basically covers the point from when abortions become illegal (in most cases) up to birth. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Here's a recent case. There are also cases where a pregnant woman has induced her own abortion and been charged, although typically the sentence for that is much lower.
Click to expand...

Do you have any thoughts on the inconsistency?
 
Bigga said:
Do you have any thoughts on the inconsistency?
Click to expand...
I think the reason it's considered an additional crime is based on the assumption that a pregnant woman typically wants to keep the baby, rather than being out of concern for an early-stage foetus. It's more to prevent violence against women rather than a particular worry for an unborn foetus.

When the baby is beyond 24 weeks, it then becomes the case that it does get individual rights beyond that of the mother, and so while not legally considered a person, is considered a being worthy of a certain degree of moral consideration. In reality, the extent to which a foetus becomes a person is something that gradually happens, and so our ethical consideration for it grows likewise. But laws don't work like that, they need a cut off. However, you might find that the difference between an early-stage pregnancy and a late-stage pregnancy is reflected in sentencing. I don't know, but I suspect that you'd get a higher sentence for illegally inducing a miscarriage at 30 weeks rather than 10 weeks.

Another reason for the existence of such laws is presumably precisely because legal abortion exists. If it's accessible, then punishing potentially dangerous illegal alternatives is necessary. But it's worth mentioning that women illegally terminating a late-stage abortion might get something like a 12-month prison sentence (even though it could technically be life), which I'm sure we can agree is far less than she'd receive if she murdered her baby after birth. So while it is considered worthy of ethical consideration, it clearly isn't considered anywhere near the same level as a baby after birth. On the other hand, using violence to cause a woman to miscarry against her will will result in a far longer sentence (life in the case I linked earlier), suggesting that the mother's wishes are a major part of the equation.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
I think the reason it's considered an additional crime is based on the assumption that a pregnant woman typically wants to keep the baby, rather than being out of concern for an early-stage foetus. It's more to prevent violence against women rather than a particular worry for an unborn foetus.

When the baby is beyond 24 weeks, it then becomes the case that it does get individual rights beyond that of the mother, and so while not legally considered a person, is considered a being worthy of a certain degree of moral consideration. In reality, the extent to which a foetus becomes a person is something that gradually happens, and so our ethical consideration for it grows likewise. But laws don't work like that, they need a cut off. However, you might find that the difference between an early-stage pregnancy and a late-stage pregnancy is reflected in sentencing. I don't know, but I suspect that you'd get a higher sentence for illegally inducing a miscarriage at 30 weeks rather than 10 weeks.

Another reason for the existence of such laws is presumably precisely because legal abortion exists. If it's accessible, then punishing potentially dangerous illegal alternatives is necessary. But it's worth mentioning that women illegally terminating a late-stage abortion might get something like a 12-month prison sentence (even though it could technically be life), which I'm sure we can agree is far less than she'd receive if she murdered her baby after birth. So while it is considered worthy of ethical consideration, it clearly isn't considered anywhere near the same level as a baby after birth. On the other hand, using violence to cause a woman to miscarry against her will will result in a far longer sentence (life in the case I linked earlier), suggesting that the mother's wishes are a major part of the equation.
Click to expand...

I was just beginning to reflect on my own question when you posted, but I'm grateful you replied. Your response actually makes me think of more questions, but I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole as I have Zen's response to go through and some of that might induce more questions!

I appreciate your thoughts, though!
 
buckshot said:
There isn't anybody else who can get their base out without him they're dead in the water. Just look at PA, we aren't considered a red state and we aren't as stupid as the southern states but we still have the people he endorsed for governor and senator winning nominations. I don't think they can win the general but they're the only ones who have a chance.

Of course the fact that they don't accept election results when they lose could change things pretty quickly...
Click to expand...
The GOP isn't going to want him nominated -- they want to hell and gone with him. He's a necessary evil at the moment. But all this damage with effectively no way for him to respond weakens him. Who knows what else will come out in the next two-plus years? It won't be refutation nor will he ever do anything that can claw back this series of events. He's absolutely toast -- it's just the timing of when he becomes toast. Within the party, only his toadiest, dumbest, most disgusting lackeys want him running again -- which is why GOP leadership is hoping via gerrymandering, incumbency, a bad-look-for-Biden economy, Dems' own internal struggles and a right-wing activist SC, the "platform" is enough to keep the cult members supporting the next generation rather than withering away. You might be right that it won't be enough and God I hope you are. But make no mistake -- the party power brokers themselves want him to be Jesus -- venerated as a savio(u)r, but nailed up on that cross dead as a doornail. They have to wean the cult off of him specifically and get them hooked on the idea and ideals of him.
 
City14 said:
As I mentioned centre right isn’t there anymore. I am kiwi and I come from a country where I stand for women having right to abortion, and staunchly against guns.

However investment and infrastructure investment from what I understand is on the up in Florida. Internal migration to the state is also on the up.

Trans topic is not a big issue in my life but I can see how ridiculous it’s becoming.

Being religious is not something which is wrong. It does provide a good structure and morals for a lot of people.

I come from a family which is inter religion a Christian mom and Sikh Father. And I’ve learnt to respect religion be spritual.

All I am saying is for people to call out religious folks as fuck tards just because you yourself are not religious doesn’t give one a
Moral high ground.
Click to expand...

If people believe in omnipotent beings and the doctrine associated with them, but don't believe a person can identify as a different gender then yes they are fuck tards.

Some of these dangerous fuck tards are starting to have major influence here in NZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.