The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Mississippi voters deny nullification of Roe v. Wade, drinks all around
Posts
Responsibly practiced IVF and BC? No, I'm not against it. I'm a huge fan of the idea that intent matters.
I'm of the opinion that the "unintended consequences" have been wildly exaggerated. Then again, IANAL, so that's just the opinion of a guy who's been batting these ideas around with folks for the past few years. *shrug*
Eh, I think it is an argument that can be made reasonably. I also think it's way over the line into "Not a life" but it is clear that sometime prior to emerging from a vagina that that not-life became a life. At that stage we're just quibbling over the timing. I don't find this argument reasonable when it's placed next to "Kill all them criminals!" and "Nuke the middle east!" which pretty handily eliminates the majority of it's presence in political discourse.
Agreed. Basically, I'm surrounded by idiots most of the time when it comes to these things.
Then you aren't being intellectually and logically consistent.
It also means you're a fan of half measures, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.
So far as my interpretation of the subtext whenever anyone uses the phrase goes: 1) People have a right to their own lives, and 2) any individual human life is, at this time, completely irreplaceable. The "sanctity" of life is why murder is wrong; it destroys without sufficient cause something which has great (possibly priceless) value.
I'm "kupiyupaekio" on Discord.
However, have you considered the practical effects of this law? How long ago/thorough was your sex ed? Are you aware that there is generally between 7 and 14 days after fertilization occurs before a pregnancy could possibly be detected? This means that for approximately 50% of the time, no female between the ages of 10 and 50 will be able to prove that they are not carrying around a fertilized egg. Currently, pregnant women receive very different medical care than non-pregnant women. Routine health maintenance things like dental x-rays are often postponed, common conditions like thyroiditis are treated in ways that just hold the condition off for a little bit rather than cure it - because nine months isn't that long and these types of things can wait nine months. However, they can't wait until menopause. If it is illegal to provide medical care that could kill a fertilized egg and a woman can't prove that she isn't carrying a fertilized egg around then we have to treat all fertile women as if they were pregnant and wanted to do everything to protect the baby over 50% of the time.
This isn't going to affect just women who get pregnant. This law has implications on the medical treatment of every woman of child-bearing age who can't prove she is permanently infertile. All the information that you have posted so far ignores the impact this law will have on the medical care of non-pregnant women. Frankly, most of the discussion about this law that I have seen assumes that it is possible to know when fertilization happens. I can understand the appeal of your position in an ideal world where that is the case; however, it just baffles me in the real world where this law will endanger the lives of all women of child-bearing age.
Irreplaceable as in genetically unique? Because all organisms are genetically unique, and we kill other plants and animals without compunction. Or is it something else?
I am not trying to be flip or obnoxious; these are real questions.
Most of it ends up being that humans are special, in part because we are all one and isn't really about genetic anything. Possibly, depending on your view, because of the God given gift of a soul.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Do you know how many times the word person appears in the Mississippi State Constitution?
Does that mean all answers to the question are equally objective?
I suspect I know the argument you're referencing, but I'd appreciate it if you would spell it out so I'm not tilting at shadows here.
Ignoring the questions about my personal sex ed, I don't quite see your argument as something that would stand up in court, or that any reasonable person would even attempt to bring to the court. Of course there's a possibility that they're pregnant -- that's why the doctor asks, "Are you pregnant?" If she says no, she's taken at her word.
Again, it is all about the intent of the doctor and the intent of the mother. If I am being treated at the hospital and I receive the last bag of type-whatever blood, I'm not responsible for what happens if someone else comes in an hour later needing that same type of blood -- and neither is the doctor who gave it to me.
Similarly, unless the doctor or the mother is knowingly and intentionally attempting to harm the child, then there's no legal issue.
The idea that it can be solved by science is crazy.
We'd have to define what we mean by personhood and then determine what science says about that. It doesn't just fall out of the first principles of physiology and anatomy.
Agreed but with politics what they are I doubt we'll have the conversation in my lifetime.
Probably not. It just means there's room for disagreement.
I believe part of the point was that a lot of the time women can't actually be sure that they're not pregnant. Even if they take a daily pregnancy test.
It is when you consider the realization that there is no effective means to solve the other problem currently. If you have a pet monkey, and keep getting burgled, the correct answer is not to hand the chimp the gun and tell it to protect you. It might solve something but odds are you're creating far more problems then you'll solve.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The point is that when you have a difficult problem you don't take an easy solution (taking a chimp you have and a gun you have) to fix it, because then that's just going to invite more problems. You have to solve the hard problems first and then work towards the easier ones after.
Intent should matter, but if this law/amendment could only be correctly applied under a vastly different court system and the court system is much harder to change, then you need to change the court system before you should pass this law/amendment. Or in other words you train the chimp to shoot first, or get a home security system! ;p
Doing otherwise, means you admit you know that the law/amendment will be used to do objectively horrible things, but you otherwise don't particularly care or you feel that the things the law solves are so horrible that these other horrible things it does do not matter by comparison.
Not a lot of faith, obviously. But slightly more.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
What informs this? Seriously, given the state of Mississippi which I believe you had just previously said yourself is not filled with the best of people, will not use this (if allowed to pass without being challenged in court, let's assume for a moment that this isn't a cynical plot to overturn Roe V Wade and it actually is an amendment for something the state wants to do) to do things that will end up only making more poor, single-mother situations where they are stuck with a kid and no way to take care of themselves or their child?
And the answer to that particular question is: Yes. Though it isn't a perfect system by any means, I have sufficient faith in the courts of Mississippi at this point in history.
The same goes for Mississippi and the Republican party.
But what I am asking is WHY you trust judges and juries to do so? Do you need me to get education, literacy or other such statistics? I can make a pretty compelling argument that Mississippi is the absolute last place this sort of thing would be interpreted well in. But first before I can, I need to understand why you place faith in either of those two things.
Relentless optimism?
Those three groups seem to be trying damn hard to become a singular entity.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I'm not convinced, without specific instances.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
It wouldn't derail the thread to tell me WHY you put faith in judges and Juries. It's directly related to this amendment because I am attempting to make an argument that they will not interpret it well. To successfully do this, I must understand why you put faith in them.
If you do not wish to tell me this, that's fine, but at least come out and say you don't want to continue the debate anymore because it makes you uncomfortable to be questioned like this. If this is not the case then please answer my question. ;p
I have faith in the judges and juries because, well, I live here. I know the general population's attitude toward things like birth control, legal practice, medical treatment, etc. I don't think we're the woman-hating hillbillies you would like to believe. Are we at the top of the intellectual heap? Gods no. And we probably won't ever be, generally speaking.
Is it anecdotal? Of course it is, and I wouldn't expect to persuade you with my anecdote(s). But if you're asking me why I put a particular amount of faith in a particular group of people, then my answer is almost always going to involve my personal experiences with those people.
I am wracking my brain, but I'm having the damnedest time recalling an instance where I stalwartly thrust my support behind an initiative that was not only academically inadvisable and immediately dangerous (and possibly at cross purposes) in the achievement of its stated goals, but also based in little more than religious (or whatever) moralism that I would seek to apply to people of all creeds and walks of life.
Like, say if instead of being a majority Christian nation, the US was a majority Jewish or Muslim nation, and Mississippi voted to make it illegal for all people, of any religion, to eat pork. Millions of people would support this movement because their own personal moral compass, guided by religious instruction and guilt, told them that this was the right thing to do.
Now, take a moment to realize that my example? The silly one with the pork and the Judaism? That's not a tiny fraction as hyperbolic, dangerous, or out-right ridiculous as the one real-life example you support.
I can understand your position on the belief that life begins at conception, but this legislation you support is the political and personal equivalent of setting the house on fire because the bedroom is too cold. And you and I can argue all day long about the bedroom's warmth, but neither of us should be holding a can of gas and a matchbook.