[RD] Abortion, once again
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
You can be tried as an adult for a crime at age 14 in Idaho, so you should be able to make up your own mind about crossing state lines for whatever legal purpose from age 14 on..
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Florida moves to ban abortion after six weeks
Florida's House of Representatives has approved a ban on most abortions after six weeks, paving the way for drastic changes in access to the procedure across the state.The bill must be signed by Republican state Governor Ron DeSantis, who has indicated his support, before it becomes law.
Opponents argue six weeks is before many women know they are pregnant.
Florida currently prohibits abortion after 15 weeks.
The state has been a safe haven for those seeking abortion in the country's south-east since Roe v Wade - which gave women in the US the constitutional right to abortion - was overturned last year.
The state's current 15-week limit on abortion is one of the most lenient in the south-east, with many travelling from other states to Florida to have the procedure.
The six-week ban makes exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest, as long as the woman can provide documentation such as a police report or a restraining order.
Florida's Republican-led House approved the ban on Thursday, with 70 voting for and 40 voting against. It had been passed in the state Senate on 3 April.
"A woman's right to choose, I've heard people talk about that," Republican lawmaker Kiyan Michael said during the debate, as quoted by CNN. "Well, that right to choose begins before you have sex."
"Women's health and their personal right to choose is being stolen," Democratic lawmaker Felicia Simone Robinson argued, in comments cited by the Associated Press news agency.
The fate of the proposed six-week ban could be affected by an ongoing legal challenge to the existing 15-week ban.
National debate over abortion in the US has been raging since a federal judge suspended the original approval of a widely used abortion drug, mifepristone, last week.
That suspension was later blocked by an appellate court, and the Biden administration has said it will ask the Supreme Court to restore full access to the drug.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65271298
Remorseless1
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,214
While talking about the rights of underage women, it's seems overlooked is the question of whether anyone, let alone parents, has the right to force an underage woman to carry a pregnancy to full term?
But in general, the discussion above on the preceding pages sees a lot of flailing around trying to come up with a cohesive legal framework that covers the entirety of the abortion issue. That is frankly impossible. Abortion, like consensual sex, religious and political affiliation, is an immensely personal decision, one that should be left to the individual, not the government. What government can do is provide realistic sex education focusing of preventing pregnancy and STDs. It might also help to improve on the US's awful record on infant and maternal mortality, but evidently, the Trumpian evangelicals stop caring about children once they're born.
But in general, the discussion above on the preceding pages sees a lot of flailing around trying to come up with a cohesive legal framework that covers the entirety of the abortion issue. That is frankly impossible. Abortion, like consensual sex, religious and political affiliation, is an immensely personal decision, one that should be left to the individual, not the government. What government can do is provide realistic sex education focusing of preventing pregnancy and STDs. It might also help to improve on the US's awful record on infant and maternal mortality, but evidently, the Trumpian evangelicals stop caring about children once they're born.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
like... this. just this.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
^^^ I'm probably thinking too deeply about a question that seems pretty shallow to begin with, especially in regards to the operative word "force" here. I guess I would say: because that's how laws work. But really you can ask that about anything that government with a police entity behind it can do. They force people to do the things that the people who put them there want.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
i mean yea. but i'd like to say, uh, personally i'm not sure a discussion about the nature of democratic legislation (even if the discussion a good one) is useful in this thread; maybe it's just me, but imo this thread has the premise that laws should be a thing, that democracy should be a thing, the question is more what laws are useful for the common good
the particular movement of abstraction when discussing force of state, even if indeed a police-backed state is quite a concrete thing, is still leaving the case at hand and can miss the concrete use value of particular legislation. it's happened a few times in this thread. it has the potential to shut down literally anything.
like say it was a thread discussing bees, and then there's a side topic discussing the nature of flight. then someone goes "well they're only able to fly with their specific setup in the particular gravitational pull here on earth". and i mean, yea, uh, right. that's kind of a given. can we discuss their flight again?
similarly, this is a particular kind of derailment. the state is forcing someone to do something. "but isn't all state force?" i mean, yea, uh, right. that's kind of a given. can we discuss the thing the state is forcing someone to do? because not all force is equally just, and not all creatures of flight have the same biology just because they share a planet. it's kind of a forced metaphor, but i hope the point is getting across ^^
(i'm not calling you out in particular btw, i just used your note here as a jumping off point because of the other times i believe similar appeals happened in the thread. i don't think your question is a shallow one at all.)
Remorseless1
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,214
In a democratic government, people vote for representatives, who then meet to draft laws and address issues, etc. That's highly simplified, but I think it goes to what Angst is saying -- the state (in theory) governs with the guidance and support of the governed. However, the modern state is necessarily complex (similar to modern cultures, art, and economics) which slows its response to crucial issue.
So, in the US, there is general agreement there are laws against certain acts (polluting the water, murder, refusing to send your child to school, etc.) and approve of agencies to ensure compliance, such as the police, environmental regulators, and social workers. In most cases, there's little controversy. People who attack or murder should be locked up, the company whose train derailed and spilled hazardous chemicals should be fined, etc. In theory, these agencies enforce these laws with the assent of the citizens.
We all know politics is far messy and complex than theory but so is the concept of force. A better word in most cases would be require, as in you are required to pay taxes, keep your vehicle in the correct lane, not kill people.
So, in the US, there is general agreement there are laws against certain acts (polluting the water, murder, refusing to send your child to school, etc.) and approve of agencies to ensure compliance, such as the police, environmental regulators, and social workers. In most cases, there's little controversy. People who attack or murder should be locked up, the company whose train derailed and spilled hazardous chemicals should be fined, etc. In theory, these agencies enforce these laws with the assent of the citizens.
We all know politics is far messy and complex than theory but so is the concept of force. A better word in most cases would be require, as in you are required to pay taxes, keep your vehicle in the correct lane, not kill people.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
I honestly think this is missing the point of the discussion: it's about what age for this specific thread. We as a society (with different rules in different States, surely) assign various illogical ages where a person can make those decisions for themselves - just as examples, not meant as equivalent: voting, running for President, drinking alcohol, having consensual sex, renting a car, choosing to keep attending school, buying cigarettes, able to marry, running for Congress, enlisting in the Army, working age - they all have different ages where "we allow" someone to make decisions for themselves. Sometimes Federal, sometimes at the State level.
So clearly, "personal" decisions are not allowed for people deemed "too young" depending on the issue. And the rules vary, by case, by state (& by country, but I'm USian here). To equate them all under one big umbrella is missing the point, IMO, else there would be one Age Of OK For Everything (not that I'd be opposed to such a thing, on principle, but it's not A Thing).
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
again i think it's pretty reasonable for someone to freely opt out of having a child if them getting boinked is categorically rape.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
I mean, sure, but not sure why you quoted me.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
maybe you wanted to refocus the discussion or something. if so sorry i guess. i answered you in the context of the few posts following remorseless's
particularly since you started talking about age in regards to abortion which i believe my comment is appropriate for, but i guess maybe not
like so ok, maybe rephrase for me; you say that this discussion is "about what age for this specific thread"; how does my response not concern that?
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
Oh, just wasn't sure why you brought rape into it in regards to my post. I assumed we were talking about various ages of engaging in consensual acts without needing to involve one's parents.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
ok! so, then, i'm trying to follow here. so remorseless1 talked about abortion as an innately personal decision. then you brought up ability to consent irt the number of ages where consent is a reasonably borked up (although necessary and innately good) number: we decide where people are able to consentually and safely participate in different aspects of life and consumption. sure. but that's kind of abstract on the nature of age and consent. the matter of hand: this thread is about abortion. if we discuss the nature of consent in the abstract, like what does age really mean for driver's licenses, it's kind of off-kilter for the thread.
if it's to be relevant to the thread, i presume it concerns abortion. so what's your stance there? my idea that irt consenting age, since you cannot consent to getting pregnant, deliberating to abort should be freely available.
the thing is, arbitrating that consent is popular (and ideally well-informed) consensus doesn't really concern the case at hand. same problem as what i tried to describe here. i'm not calling you out either, but it's both unproductive and often used as a shroud to distance beliefs, so i'm very wary of that language - regardless of your position, it's not a good rhetorical environment since some people abuse it. : )
but yea, otherwise: yep. consent is imo ideally legislated, it's sometimes arbitrary, but it's innately necessary. sometimes parental oversight is useful (although i'm less sympathetic to parents being involved in serious choices, since they can, simply, be ill-informed or malicious; moreso than professionals, who we draw the idea of consent being well-informed as part of the premise).
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
My main point in listing the other (fairly arbitrary) ages of "consent" is that they also involve "immensely personal decision"(s). So I don't find that abortion being an immensely personal decision means that it should be left up to the individual to decide.
For example, before age X you can't decide to stop attending school*, despite that being a personal decision. Before age Y you can't run for President*, despite that being an immensely personal decision. So I was simply saying I don't find @Remorseless1's reasoning for allowing someone below age Z to make their own decision about abortion to be persuasive (I don't claim to know what Z should be). Not trying to say I wouldn't find other reasons to be persuasive, but just something being "immensely personal" is not. JMO of course - not trying to set the Law Of The Land According To RobAnybody or anything.
* just to head off anything in this regard: I'm not equating any of these decisions, just saying they are all immensely personal
Just to note, this one is very much not something that even needs to exist
before you were saying "minors" which will generally mean 18 years old. Are you backing away from that now?
Last edited:
Review into ACT abortion law has come back, the headline is sharp criticism of the Calvary public hospital (run by a catholic org, but public sector) not providing any reproductive healthcare even in cases where procedures aren't actually abortion, such as the removal of dead tissue left after an incomplete miscarriage. And also not providing referrals for stuff they object to.
However there's also other good stuff in there, especially the recommendation that local provision of later surgical abortions needs to be funded so people don't need to go to Sydney. Currently there's no gestational limit laws or anything like that in the ACT, and in New South Wales the law allows abortion up to 22 weeks pretty simply and after 22 weeks with consultation and a specialist in hospital. So the law isn't an issue in either jurisdiction, but the lack of any complex surgical providers locally means people have to travel 3 hours and stay overnight in Sydney at considerable expense. Which flies in the face of the Territory making abortion access free in Canberra.
Also recommends increasing the abortion clinic protest ban zone to 150m radius and training a lot more GPs and pharmacists too provide medical abortions. Just getting rid of the remaining barriers to access all around, because while having freee and open laws is one thing, reproductive healthcare still needs to be accessible and resourced.
However there's also other good stuff in there, especially the recommendation that local provision of later surgical abortions needs to be funded so people don't need to go to Sydney. Currently there's no gestational limit laws or anything like that in the ACT, and in New South Wales the law allows abortion up to 22 weeks pretty simply and after 22 weeks with consultation and a specialist in hospital. So the law isn't an issue in either jurisdiction, but the lack of any complex surgical providers locally means people have to travel 3 hours and stay overnight in Sydney at considerable expense. Which flies in the face of the Territory making abortion access free in Canberra.
Also recommends increasing the abortion clinic protest ban zone to 150m radius and training a lot more GPs and pharmacists too provide medical abortions. Just getting rid of the remaining barriers to access all around, because while having freee and open laws is one thing, reproductive healthcare still needs to be accessible and resourced.
Last edited:
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
I am not, because the age of "minors" (here in the US) varies from state to state, so it's impossible for me to specify an exact age (nor do I feel like "RobAnybody Declares The Age of Minors To Be X" is in my purview). I'm saying I can't possibly say which state is "correct" in their assessment of the term "minor". So here we sometimes have to be generic & just use that term instead.
Last edited:
