[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t know how it can be spelled out for you any clearer:

It should be easy because so far you've done nothing but obfuscate.

$1:

The old abortion laws specifically exempted women from prosecution. This one doesn’t. Why do you think that is?

Well here's something you could do to make things clearer. Show me what you're talking about.

Out your butt information doesn't help. I read the amended bill (link already posted) and as I recall there was something there about how this bill wouldn't conflict with other Georgia laws unless specifically stated. Something like that anyway. Clarify that for me if you like.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My comment went to the heart of your assertion that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

The fact that you equate a vaccine with giving birth and being stuck with a kid for the next 18 years shows you definitely went to the university of logical fallacies. It's not even worth discussing the rest of the nonsense you posted, because the premise is ludicrous.

[N_Fiddledog]

In any case Beave, as I recall your original complaint was against the Daily Wire for daring to suggest alt-left websites like Slate could be less than infallible when they stated, as Slate did - and I quote - “Women who terminate their pregnancies would receive life in prison.”


But now it sounds like you'd like to change Slate's claim to something more like: Women who terminate their pregnancies could maybe, possibly, in certain circumstances receive some sort of legal penalty

Clarify that for me if you like.

[Thanos]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My comment went to the heart of your assertion that we shouldn't have any input on what women can do with their bodies.

The fact that you equate a vaccine with giving birth and being stuck with a kid for the next 18 years shows you definitely went to the university of logical fallacies. It's not even worth discussing the rest of the nonsense you posted, because the premise is ludicrous.

"Why should my tax dollars go for vaccinations? Let the little bastids pay for it themselves!" - every child-loving "pro-lifer" everywhere.

[N_Fiddledog]

raydan raydan:

Question... just curious

In these states that would make abortions illegal and if a woman gets an abortion... who would be breaking the law, the woman, the person aborting her or both?

The abortionist.

$1:

Because if the woman is not breaking the law, she can just go elsewhere, out of state or out of country.

True.

[raydan]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

raydan raydan:

Question... just curious

In these states that would make abortions illegal and if a woman gets an abortion... who would be breaking the law, the woman, the person aborting her or both?

The abortionist.

$1:

Because if the woman is not breaking the law, she can just go elsewhere, out of state or out of country.

True.

So the rich won't have any problems getting aborted, but the poor will.

Well that's fair.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

In any case Beave, as I recall your original complaint was against the Daily Wire for daring to suggest alt-left websites like Slate could be less than infallible when they stated, as Slate did - and I quote - “Women who terminate their pregnancies would receive life in prison.”


But now it sounds like you'd like to change Slate's claim to something more like: Women who terminate their pregnancies could maybe, possibly, in certain circumstances receive some sort of legal penalty

Clarify that for me if you like.

You recall wrong. Go back and read what I first said about this whole little tangent about Slate et al.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You recall wrong. Go back and read what I first said about this whole little tangent about Slate et al.

Bah.

Obfuscation. Misdirection. Here's the core.

You claimed that because The Daily Wire did not specifically go into every obfuscation, and back-peddle in every one of the alt-left articles breathlessly warning of life imprisonments in their titles for women who had abortions TDW was lying and I was being conned.

You're wrong, of course. Flat-out and again. The title of the Slate piece you were particularly protective of claimed this:

Women who terminate their pregnancies would receive life in prison

Tell you what...you were telling us earlier of your wish to speak more clearly. Very well tell me clearly then - do you believe Slate's claim that women will receive life in prison under Georgia's new heartbeat law?

Yes or no.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You recall wrong. Go back and read what I first said about this whole little tangent about Slate et al.

Bah.

Obfuscation. Misdirection. Here's the core.

You claimed that because The Daily Wire did not specifically go into every obfuscation, and back-peddle in every one of the alt-left articles breathlessly warning of life imprisonments for women who had abortions in their titles TDW was lying and I was being conned.

I claimed no such thing, you liar.

$1:

You're wrong, of course. Flat-out and again. The title of the Slate piece you were particularly protective of claimed this:

Women who terminate their pregnancies would receive life in prison

Tell you what...you were telling us earlier of your wish to speak more clearly. Very well tell me clearly then - do you believe Slate's claim that women will receive life in prison under Georgia's new heartbeat law?

Yes or no.

I don’t know about “will” as I can’t predict the future but I believe it’s plausible that *if * this law comes into effect then eventually some zealous prosecutor might attempt it.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I claimed no such thing, you liar.

I think you did but I don't think I'll call you a liar. I'll just say that hmmm...you don't appear to be very good at understanding things.

$1:

I don’t know about “will” as I can’t predict the future but I believe it’s plausible that *if * this law comes into effect then eventually some zealous prosecutor might attempt it.

Maybe Slate and the others shouldn't have titled their articles in a way that suggested they did know woman having abortions in Georgia would spend life in prison then.

Luckily The Daily Wire, WaPo, Planned Parenthood, the Daily Post and others caught them in their lie.

[N_Fiddledog]

I'm still not sure why you were so intent on demonizing the The Daily Wire article though.

If you'd tried reading it instead, it might have helped you with your wishy-washy understanding of the bill.

Try this bit for instance:

$1:

French provides more in-depth coverage of the legalese surrounding the law's implications. “The heartbeat bill did not repeal a number of Georgia criminal statutes that explicitly apply to abortions and unborn children, and it does not overrule controlling legal authority holding that these statutes bar prosecution of a woman for terminating her own pregnancy,” the conservative columnist explained. He also went through explicit statutes:

First, there is a specific code section that applies to unlawful abortions. Georgia Code Section 16-12-140 states:

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal abortion when, in violation of Code Section 16-12-141 , he or she administers any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever to any woman or when he or she uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal abortion shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.

“If a person performs an abortion in violation of the heartbeat bill, then Code Section 16-12-140 applies,” explained French, noting that the law “does not impose life imprisonment on anybody, and Georgia courts have held that it does not apply to a woman who self-terminates, only to third parties who perform an abortion.”

For example, the Court of Appeals of Georgia refused to prosecute a woman who shot herself in the stomach to kill her unborn baby, interpreting Section 16-12-140 thus: “This statute is written in the third person, clearly indicating that at least two actors must be involved.”

“Second,” said French, “the Georgia code section that criminalizes ‘feticide’ (such as when a man attacks a woman for the purpose of killing her unborn baby) specifically states that ‘nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of … any woman with respect to her unborn child.’”

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'm still not sure why you were so intent on demonizing the The Daily Wire article though.

If you'd tried reading it instead, it might have helped you with your wishy-washy understanding of the bill.

Try this bit for instance:

$1:

French provides more in-depth coverage of the legalese surrounding the law's implications. “The heartbeat bill did not repeal a number of Georgia criminal statutes that explicitly apply to abortions and unborn children, and it does not overrule controlling legal authority holding that these statutes bar prosecution of a woman for terminating her own pregnancy,” the conservative columnist explained. He also went through explicit statutes:

First, there is a specific code section that applies to unlawful abortions. Georgia Code Section 16-12-140 states:

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal abortion when, in violation of Code Section 16-12-141 , he or she administers any medicine, drugs, or other substance whatever to any woman or when he or she uses any instrument or other means whatever upon any woman with intent to produce a miscarriage or abortion.

(b) A person convicted of the offense of criminal abortion shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.

“If a person performs an abortion in violation of the heartbeat bill, then Code Section 16-12-140 applies,” explained French, noting that the law “does not impose life imprisonment on anybody, and Georgia courts have held that it does not apply to a woman who self-terminates, only to third parties who perform an abortion.”

For example, the Court of Appeals of Georgia refused to prosecute a woman who shot herself in the stomach to kill her unborn baby, interpreting Section 16-12-140 thus: “This statute is written in the third person, clearly indicating that at least two actors must be involved.”

“Second,” said French, “the Georgia code section that criminalizes ‘feticide’ (such as when a man attacks a woman for the purpose of killing her unborn baby) specifically states that ‘nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of … any woman with respect to her unborn child.’”

We discussed all that at length now stop repeating yourself. It leaves the door open.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why? Because in the US we now have a declining birthrate. So we have a collective interest in having more babies and we have a collective interest in not aborting them.

So where we've established that collective interests trump individual rights then there we are.

Stopping abortions won't make up for the declining birthrate. Make it easier to have and care for children, and more people will choose not to have abortions. And the people who don't have children because they don't think they can afford to, will also start.

Higher birth rates start with eliminating the wage gap and tax burdens.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why? Because in the US we now have a declining birthrate. So we have a collective interest in having more babies and we have a collective interest in not aborting them.

So where we've established that collective interests trump individual rights then there we are.

Stopping abortions won't make up for the declining birthrate. Make it easier to have and care for children, and more people will choose not to have abortions. And the people who don't have children because they don't think they can afford to, will also start.

Higher birth rates start with eliminating the wage gap and tax burdens.

Exactly. Besides Republicans don’t seem to care about improving their abysmal child mortality rate so it’s unlikely they truly care about birth rates. It’s just another excuse for them to impose their Sharia law on us infidels.

[stratos]

$1:

Exactly. Besides Republicans don’t seem to care about improving their abysmal child mortality rate so it’s unlikely they truly care about birth rates. It’s just another excuse for them to impose their Sharia law on us infidels.

Okay I know you are being sarcastic but your first sentence, total sarcasm or do you truly think Republicans ( I assume in Canada) are like that?