State abortion laws megathread

[TJ in Oregon]

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).   

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.

[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.

[HillGoose]

WAKE UP SHEEPLE this is all a big distraction the government is using this to distract us all. They take away freedoms like this in a way that gets people talking so they can take away even more freedoms behind closed doors and no one will notice!!!

Next on the list is probably second amendment rights, and then they will be taking even more of our paycheck to stuff their own big government pockets!!!

[Continential]

WAKE UP SHEEPLE this is all a big distraction the government is using this to distract us all. They take away freedoms like this in a way that gets people talking so they can take away even more freedoms behind closed doors and no one will notice!!!

Next on the list is probably second amendment rights, and then they will be taking even more of our paycheck to stuff their own big government pockets!!!

I agree, I wish that the Government wouldn't give a sh**t about Abortion and it was legal.

[Person Man]

Do we have a map where we have the recordings of all states where:

1) States where abortion will automatically be illegal or most illegal in (few exceptions or very strict quickening laws)
2) States where abortion is guaranteed to be legal because there is judicial, statutory, or constitutional protections
3) states that have not updated the fundamentals of their abortion laws in 50 years

[Joe Biden 2024]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/444800-california-bill-would-give-tax-breaks-to-production-studios-that-leave

Not a abortion law, but I thought it was still relevant to this conversation.

[Person Man]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/444800-california-bill-would-give-tax-breaks-to-production-studios-that-leave

Not a abortion law, but I thought it was still relevant to this conversation.

They can do whatever they want. Why don't they give tax cuts to do business with other states that have a state religion?

[Thunder98]

So shocked! /s

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1129026234900537344

[Person Man]

So shocked! /s

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1129026234900537344

That's probably incidentally related but not why.

[GP270watch]

Confederate-Loving Florida Lawmaker Uses White-Supremacist Talking Point to Justify Abortion Ban


Florida state Sen. Dennis Baxley went on WLRN to talk about abortion, since Georgia, Alabama, and other states recently passed nightmarish anti-abortion restrictions and Baxley himself had sponsored a similar anti-choice bill this year that died before becoming law.

“When you get a birth rate less than 2 percent, that society is disappearing,” Baxley said of Western Europe. “And it’s being replaced by folks that come behind them and immigrate, don’t wish to assimilate into that society and they do believe in having children. So you see that there are long range impacts to your society when the answer is to exterminate.”

 The Republican party has simply become a fascist party.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Confederate-Loving Florida Lawmaker Uses White-Supremacist Talking Point to Justify Abortion Ban


Florida state Sen. Dennis Baxley went on WLRN to talk about abortion, since Georgia, Alabama, and other states recently passed nightmarish anti-abortion restrictions and Baxley himself had sponsored a similar anti-choice bill this year that died before becoming law.

“When you get a birth rate less than 2 percent, that society is disappearing,” Baxley said of Western Europe. “And it’s being replaced by folks that come behind them and immigrate, don’t wish to assimilate into that society and they do believe in having children. So you see that there are long range impacts to your society when the answer is to exterminate.”

 The Republican party has simply become a fascist party.

Florida...

Anyway, I want to start referring to the "pro-life" as "pro-force" instead, it's much more accurate and avoids giving them the ability to hide behind the "life is sacred" smokescreen.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

WAKE UP SHEEPLE this is all a big distraction the government is using this to distract us all. They take away freedoms like this in a way that gets people talking so they can take away even more freedoms behind closed doors and no one will notice!!!

Next on the list is probably second amendment rights, and then they will be taking even more of our paycheck to stuff their own big government pockets!!!

Nooooo! Don't wake... The Sheeple.

[Person Man]

WAKE UP SHEEPLE this is all a big distraction the government is using this to distract us all. They take away freedoms like this in a way that gets people talking so they can take away even more freedoms behind closed doors and no one will notice!!!

Next on the list is probably second amendment rights, and then they will be taking even more of our paycheck to stuff their own big government pockets!!!

Nooooo! Don't wake... The Sheeple.

It's already too late.

[JGibson]

The Illinois State House has passed the Reproductive Health Act 64-50-4-0. It'll be taken up in the State Senate the next couple of days, and should it pass there, J.B. Pritzker will sign it into law.



 

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

[Crumpets]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

As far as I've seen, it's actually a remarkably consistent issue over time.

[Storr]

"NC House fails to block Cooper’s veto on ‘born alive’ abortion bill"
The override failed 67-53.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article231125688.html

[Tartarus Sauce]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

It's been pretty bizarrely consistent, actually, especially considering the decline in religiosity. It would be interesting to see though if Millenials and Gen-Z'ers that identify on the pro-life side of things interpret being pro-life somewhat differently than older generations.

Abortion polling is much more steady than what we see on other sex and gender issues.

Support for abortion in recent history has also tended to be more conciliatory. Imagine someone telling you that they wanted to keep gay marriage "safe, legal, and rare."

You'll notice that this is changing. To my ear, at least, support for abortion rights has leaned much more heavily into the idea that denying them is fundamentally misogynistic during the past few years.

The charge that many pro-life people are hypocrites who care more about the unborn than the living isn't new, but I don't remember nearly so many charges that opposing abortion rights "is really about hating women" before 2014-2016 or so.

George Carlin was certainly making that claim by at least the 90s. Not sure if anybody else was tapping into that sentiment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

It's been pretty bizarrely consistent, actually, especially considering the decline in religiosity.

Why?  Irreligious people can't be ethical?  After all, the question of what constitutes a human life is one of the most basic of ethical questions and does not need religion to be answered. However, the answer one has to that question largely determines under what circumstances someone will support allowing abortion to happen. There's no contradiction if an atheist is pro-life.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

It's been pretty bizarrely consistent, actually, especially considering the decline in religiosity.

Why? Irreligious people can't be ethical?  After all, the question of what constitutes a human life is one of the most basic of ethical questions and does not need religion to be answered. However, the answer one has to that question largely determines under what circumstances someone will support allowing abortion to happen. There's no contradiction if an atheist is pro-life.

You misunderstand me. I'm an atheist myself and don't think there is an inherent contradiction in being a pro-life atheist. I consider the resilience for pro-life stances puzzling because the pro-life movement in America is heavily reliant upon religious fervor to drive its activism and much of its organization and philosophical framing revolves around religious affiliated networks and religious rhetoric. Thus, one would think there would have been a noticeable drop in pro-life stances among the younger generations in comparison to the older ones because of their greater irreligiosity.

This is why I suspect that there must have been a shift within much of the younger pro-life identifiers in terms of the "flavor" of their pro-life stances.

[Person Man]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

It's been pretty bizarrely consistent, actually, especially considering the decline in religiosity.

Why? Irreligious people can't be ethical?  After all, the question of what constitutes a human life is one of the most basic of ethical questions and does not need religion to be answered. However, the answer one has to that question largely determines under what circumstances someone will support allowing abortion to happen. There's no contradiction if an atheist is pro-life.

You misunderstand me. I'm an atheist myself and don't think there is an inherent contradiction in being a pro-life atheist. I consider the resilience for pro-life stances puzzling because the pro-life movement in America is heavily reliant upon religious fervor to drive its activism and much of its organization and philosophical framing revolves around religious affiliated networks and religious rhetoric. Thus, one would think there would have been a noticeable drop in pro-life stances among the younger generations in comparison to the older ones because of their greater irreligiosity.

This is why I suspect that there must have been a shift within much of the younger pro-life identifiers in terms of the "flavor" of their pro-life stances.

It will be really interesting to see what is happening. Are seculars becoming more "moderate" or are religious people becoming more right-wing? 10 to 20 years ago, I would have definitely said that there were more pro-choice people reconsidering their opinions but not it appears to be the opposite case.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

It's been pretty bizarrely consistent, actually, especially considering the decline in religiosity.

Why? Irreligious people can't be ethical?  After all, the question of what constitutes a human life is one of the most basic of ethical questions and does not need religion to be answered. However, the answer one has to that question largely determines under what circumstances someone will support allowing abortion to happen. There's no contradiction if an atheist is pro-life.

You misunderstand me. I'm an atheist myself and don't think there is an inherent contradiction in being a pro-life atheist. I consider the resilience for pro-life stances puzzling because the pro-life movement in America is heavily reliant upon religious fervor to drive its activism and much of its organization and philosophical framing revolves around religious affiliated networks and religious rhetoric. Thus, one would think there would have been a noticeable drop in pro-life stances among the younger generations in comparison to the older ones because of their greater irreligiosity.

This is why I suspect that there must have been a shift within much of the younger pro-life identifiers in terms of the "flavor" of their pro-life stances.

It will be really interesting to see what is happening. Are seculars becoming more "moderate" or are religious people becoming more right-wing? 10 to 20 years ago, I would have definitely said that there were more pro-choice people reconsidering their opinions but not it appears to be the opposite case.

Part of it would be that not every person from a religious background who becomes more secular also becomes more pro-choice.  They may have been pro-choice to begin with, or else they may keep their pro-life views even as they leave behind their religious views.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

It's been pretty bizarrely consistent, actually, especially considering the decline in religiosity.

Why? Irreligious people can't be ethical?  After all, the question of what constitutes a human life is one of the most basic of ethical questions and does not need religion to be answered. However, the answer one has to that question largely determines under what circumstances someone will support allowing abortion to happen. There's no contradiction if an atheist is pro-life.

You misunderstand me. I'm an atheist myself and don't think there is an inherent contradiction in being a pro-life atheist. I consider the resilience for pro-life stances puzzling because the pro-life movement in America is heavily reliant upon religious fervor to drive its activism and much of its organization and philosophical framing revolves around religious affiliated networks and religious rhetoric. Thus, one would think there would have been a noticeable drop in pro-life stances among the younger generations in comparison to the older ones because of their greater irreligiosity.

This is why I suspect that there must have been a shift within much of the younger pro-life identifiers in terms of the "flavor" of their pro-life stances.

It will be really interesting to see what is happening. Are seculars becoming more "moderate" or are religious people becoming more right-wing? 10 to 20 years ago, I would have definitely said that there were more pro-choice people reconsidering their opinions but not it appears to be the opposite case.

Part of it would be that not every person from a religious background who becomes more secular also becomes more pro-choice.  They may have been pro-choice to begin with, or else they may keep their pro-life views even as they leave behind their religious views.

It could be interesting to see what happens with the children of these people and see whether they will also develop pro-life views without being raised in a religious manner built to push such views.

[Person Man]

Is abortion a generational issue where opposition is literally dying out like gay marriage is? I do remember back in 2004 how united the country was in opposition to gay marriage. It would seem to me that the abortion issue should be similar with the youth being less religious, but the intense opposition in red states to abortion is perplexing. Red states have mostly given up on gay marriage, and the national polls have it around 70% support.

It's been pretty bizarrely consistent, actually, especially considering the decline in religiosity.

Why? Irreligious people can't be ethical?  After all, the question of what constitutes a human life is one of the most basic of ethical questions and does not need religion to be answered. However, the answer one has to that question largely determines under what circumstances someone will support allowing abortion to happen. There's no contradiction if an atheist is pro-life.

You misunderstand me. I'm an atheist myself and don't think there is an inherent contradiction in being a pro-life atheist. I consider the resilience for pro-life stances puzzling because the pro-life movement in America is heavily reliant upon religious fervor to drive its activism and much of its organization and philosophical framing revolves around religious affiliated networks and religious rhetoric. Thus, one would think there would have been a noticeable drop in pro-life stances among the younger generations in comparison to the older ones because of their greater irreligiosity.

This is why I suspect that there must have been a shift within much of the younger pro-life identifiers in terms of the "flavor" of their pro-life stances.

It will be really interesting to see what is happening. Are seculars becoming more "moderate" or are religious people becoming more right-wing? 10 to 20 years ago, I would have definitely said that there were more pro-choice people reconsidering their opinions but not it appears to be the opposite case.

Part of it would be that not every person from a religious background who becomes more secular also becomes more pro-choice.  They may have been pro-choice to begin with, or else they may keep their pro-life views even as they leave behind their religious views.

It could be interesting to see what happens with the children of these people and see whether they will also develop pro-life views without being raised in a religious manner built to push such views.

I've come across that multiple times and that is saying something if you get to know someone to that level that many times who has had that same experience. Maybe know views are shifting as they themselves are having children. Its hard when a parent can't just shut down a child's exploration of new ideas with "you're going to hell!"

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1138459660405616641