State abortion laws megathread

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Should the act of sex itself be illegal because an innumerably large number of sperms inevitably die in the process; even if 1 or more (in the case of fraternal twins) of the sperms connects to an egg; the rest still die?

If the answer is yes, then almost every living animal on the planet is guilty of mass murder.
If the answer is no, then well its not much different from abortions and therefore, abortion should also be legal.

An unborn baby is genetically distinct from their parents, unlike sperm.

Yeah, I never understood those on the pro-choice camp making jokes about masturbation, condoms, etc. to draw a comparison with abortion.  I understand people generally aren't making a serious argument when they do this, but it's such a category error it makes the pro-choice side look ridiculous. One would think the difference between 23 and 46 chromosomes is pretty clear, to say nothing else.  The pro-choice side would do well to stick to arguments about bodily autonomy rather than make statements that are biologically...problematic. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Should the act of sex itself be illegal because an innumerably large number of sperms inevitably die in the process; even if 1 or more (in the case of fraternal twins) of the sperms connects to an egg; the rest still die?

If the answer is yes, then almost every living animal on the planet is guilty of mass murder.
If the answer is no, then well its not much different from abortions and therefore, abortion should also be legal.

An unborn baby is genetically distinct from their parents, unlike sperm.

Yeah, I never understood those on the pro-choice camp making jokes about masturbation, condoms, etc. to draw a comparison with abortion.  I understand people generally aren't making a serious argument when they do this, but it's such a category error it makes the pro-choice side look ridiculous. One would think the difference between 23 and 46 chromosomes is pretty clear, to say nothing else.  The pro-choice side would do well to stick to arguments about bodily autonomy rather than make statements that are biologically...problematic. 

It is a good counter to the absurd "potential" argument though - if abortion is to be opposed because the zygote represents the potential for life (see: "would you be here if your parents had aborted you?") you might as well bemoan the loss of every single gamete.

I agree - those types of pro-life arguments are indeed extremely weak, as there would be no reason to oppose abortion if one believed the fetus only represented potential human life as opposed to actual human life, and the condoms joke would indeed be appropriate then.  I suppose the joke just seems a bit trite if no one is actually making that argument. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Under this law a woman who miscarries could be liable for second-degree murder, she could be imprisoned for 30 years.

What?

There's a lot of wild speculation going on here about how this bill would be applied.

Well, the statutes would be there if the county DA's want to make use of them. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Under this law a woman who miscarries could be liable for second-degree murder, she could be imprisoned for 30 years.

What?

There's a lot of wild speculation going on here about how this bill would be applied.

Well, the statutes would be there if the county DA's want to make use of them.  

Which statutes?

I just meant that if laws are on the books then they give the local DA's the power to charge people with crimes with the potential penalties specified in the law.  Reading about this it sounds like this law has 10 years for conspiracy to leave state to get abortion, 2nd degree murder for self-induced abortion, and 1st for abortions in other circumstances, so DA's have the discretion to file these charges if they so choose.  Am I missing something?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Under this law a woman who miscarries could be liable for second-degree murder, she could be imprisoned for 30 years.

What?

There's a lot of wild speculation going on here about how this bill would be applied.

Well, the statutes would be there if the county DA's want to make use of them.  

Which statutes?

I just meant that if laws are on the books then they give the local DA's the power to charge people with crimes with the potential penalties specified in the law.  Reading about this it sounds like this law has 10 years for conspiracy to leave state to get abortion, 2nd degree murder for self-induced abortion, and 1st for abortions in other circumstances, so DA's have the discretion to file these charges if they so choose.  Am I missing something?

Here's the bill: https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-SB-23

I don't see anything there about charging anyone with murder or conspiracy.  As far as I can tell this analysis relies on the idea that because it defines an unborn child as a person, then there would be certain penalties that go along with that. So it's making a lot of assumptions.

Are the Ohio and Georgia bills identical?  I was referring to GA.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Here it is:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/HB/481
I got mixed up about the state but I was thinking of the GA bill.

OK, I see.  So it seems the discussion about penalties was an extrapolation on the basis of an expansion of the definition of a person rather than something explicitly mentioned in the law.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I disagree with the argument that those who support making abortion illegal but are OK with a rape exception are incoherent.  This is because one could accept the personhood of the fetus and still favor the right to an abortion by accepting the logic of Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist analogy (but only applying this to when one is "hooked up to the violinist," or pregnant, as a result of circumstances outside one's own control). 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The issue there is that we don't allow the direct and intentional killing (emphasis mine) of people simply because they are reliant on you for reasons outside of your control. If one accepts fetal personalhood and the view that murder should be illegal, then it really simply does follow from that that there ought not to be a rape exception. While the question of how someone got into that position obviously does effect the personal hardship of the matter, it doesn't materially change the reality of the situation...

The counter-argument (and I think we've discussed this before) is that abortion is not murder per se, but akin to child neglect, at least when discussing first- or sometimes second-trimester cases. By removing the fetus from the womb, you deprive it of the resources necessary for survival but don't necessarily terminate its life functions. (Obviously some processes, especially later in gestation, do terminate those functions immediately.)

Since providing resources (in the form of nutrients) is an obligation to take an action (the act of care) rather than an obligation against an action (i.e. killing), it follows from pretty standard action-inaction theories that this obligation only exists where accepted as the implication of consensual behavior (as is done by consensual, reproductive intercourse). In other words, even if we can rationally oblige mothers not to kill children borne of rape, we can't oblige mothers to care for them.

But, you can hardly claim it is an inaction when you forcibly remove it from the womb. It's less like failing to provide food to already born children and more like pulling out a feeding tube from a hospitalized patient. It is even moreso since the mother, if she takes no conscious action, will continue to provide the fetus with nutrients unconsciously.

Out of curiosity, in the violinist example then, would you say that the person who disconnects from the violinist should be charged with a crime even if the person attached to the violinist was forcibly so?  Because disconnecting would be an active cessation of care (while staying connected would mean the violinist would automatically continue to live).   

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Yes, I would. I don't think the violinist example is a particularly interesting contrived scenario (for one thing, dialysis is more likely to save them than hooking them up to some random person's kidneys, and also, what does they fact that they're a violinist have to do with anything?), but even if we accept the premises of the thought experiment, the results are quite obvious: you murder them by unplugging. Yeah, it's a sucky situation and a rough draw to be in that position, but it doesn't make the conclusion any less obvious. Other than making an attempt at an emotional plea, it doesn't really argue much of anything.

OK, fair enough.  My point was simply to say that if someone accepts the right of the person to unhook from the violinist then it would justify a rape exception, but if one doesn't accept it then obviously a rape exception wouldn't make sense.