A Judge Finally Ruled On Women's Body Autonomy

1. 75

   Valeantposted 2 months ago

   Down in Georgia, McBurnie finds that women have the right to their own body autonomy under the liberty that the Georgia Constitution provides.  The phrase Handmaid's Tale was used and the word incubator in his opinion.
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilxFpYgC34M

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I would have to say that women depending on his finding will find themselves up on murder charges.
      
      I do not understand how a judge, of all people, can decide that a child in the womb can be murdered at will without ever even mentioning it.  Just deciding that "body autonomy" includes the right to murder.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         Because our precedents have not given the unborn rights until birth.  And many of the scenarios where women need that body autonomy to protect themselves have already resulted in the fatal outcome of the unborn.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            And the judge is setting that precedent, by ignoring the child within, or pretending it doesn't exist? 
            
            As I say, the next judge in line, or in a higher court, is quite likely to ignore the ignorance of the first one and decide a murder rap is in order.
            
            On top of that, this judge appears to be making law, not interpreting it.  He has decided that this new concept - that unborn have rights - is of no value because it is new.  A pretty poor argument, IMO.
            
            No, Val, this is not the way to solve this massive problem.  It requires a great deal of discussion, compromise and reason, not just a "women have the right to kill" and that's the end of it.  I'll add that we're going to have to face the idea that abortion is killing a man's baby in order to save some discomfort to the mother - is that a reasonable action to take?  IMO, no, and one day we will be having THAT discussion as well.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               You say the judge is setting precedent.  But then argue that 'this new concept - that unborn have rights' seems to admit that those setting precedent are the ones forcing women to give birth, regardless of the circumstances they face. 
               
               And the judge is not setting precedent as you claim.  That precedent, that no government has the right to force a medical procedure onto a citizen - even to save the life of a fellow citizen - had been the law of the land for a long time.  It is called liberty.  Even in death, a citizen has rights to what can be done with their own body.
               
               I agree with you though that there can be some compromise on the issue.  Neither extreme should be the law of the land.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  "That precedent, that no government has the right to force a medical procedure onto a citizen - even to save the life of a fellow citizen - had been the law of the land for a long time. "
                  
                  Can you give an example of this?  Wherein the law STATES that no medical procedure can be forced in order to save the life of another?  The closest I can come is the idea that a hospital may force a nurse or physician to be vaccinated in order to work there, and the law allows such a rule.  That's the opposite of what you say.
                  
                  Personally, I was reasonably happy with RvW. Wish we still had it, although we will never stop the rabid right, using God's Word to beat in the heads of everyone else.  But I do think the large majority of the country was satisfied with RvW - they just didn't scream as loud as some.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                     'The closest I can come is the idea that a hospital may force a nurse or physician to be vaccinated in order to work there, and the law allows such a rule.  That's the opposite of what you say.'
                     
                     And yet, even in that example, the nurse or physician has the choice to not get whatever vaccine the hospital would require.  By preventing access to abortion, that is forcing a medical procedure - childbirth.
                     
                     As to the precedent pertaining to medical procedures:
                     As long ago as the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court began recognizing that, in American law, it would be an illegal assault to require an individual to undergo a medical procedure without that person’s consent. At the time, that principle was recognized as a part of what is called “common law.” Over time, that idea would become a part of the Supreme Court’s recognition of a constitutional right of privacy, protecting one’s bodily integrity. Virginia Governor McDonnell’s statement about an invasive ultrasound procedure fit within that legal tradition.
                     
                     The Supreme Court’s first significant foray into this area came in a ruling in May 1891, in the case of Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford. The case involved Clara L. Botsford, who had taken a trip in a railroad sleeping car. The berth above came unlatched, and fell on her head, causing a concussion and injuring her spinal cord. After she sued the railroad for damages, the railroad demanded that she undergo a physical exam in order to determine the extent of her injuries. A judge refused to order the exam, the case went to trial, and Botsford won a verdict of $10,000. The railroad took the case to the Supreme Court.
                     
                     Agreeing that the judge lacked the authority to compel the exam, the Court said: “No right is more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law…To compel any one, and especially a woman, to lay bare the body, or to submit it to the touch of a stranger, without lawful authority, is an indignity, an assault, and a trespass…”
                     
                     When that principle became a part of constitutional law, it slowly expanded into a more general right of privacy, beginning in the 1920s and continuing even now. In time, the right was found to exist under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, even the Ninth Amendment on unenumerated rights, and, when state laws were involved, the Fourteenth Amendment. This has been a controversial process, with critics suggesting that Justices often did little more than write their own value preferences into the word “privacy.”
                     
                     But that process has been most controversial when it returned to its origins in the Botsford decision–that is, privacy as a shield for “bodily integrity.” In that realm, courts have struggled to determine when the right can be restricted, based upon “clear and unquestionable authority of law,” in the phrase used by the Court in Botsford.
                     
                     Of course, the most controversial recognition of the right in this context came in the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, finding that a woman had a constitutional right of privacy that included the right to an abortion, at least in the early stages of pregnancy. (Not by coincidence, the Court there began its review of the history of privacy rights with the Botsford decision.)

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                        And yet, there is a difference between what you're talking about here and an abortion.  One affects only the person denying medical care, one is a second person (doctor), acting on behalf of the first person (mother) to kill the third person (child).  As soon as that murder enters the scene, the mother is not doing to her body; she is killing another human being, one that she voluntarily helped to create.
                        
                        It's been interesting, but I don't see us getting together in any manner here (shocking, right?).  You absolutely refuse to acknowledge the beliefs of anyone else, demanding that everyone accept that a child is not human.  While I repudiate that concept I can recognize it and try and work within it towards some kind of compromise...if my "opponent" also desires a solution.  You don't, seeming to taking you out of the realm of actually producing a solution all can live with and leave us perpetually fighting about the subject, with no end in sight.

                        replyreport
2. 75

   Valeantposted 2 months ago

   '...one that she voluntarily helped to create.'  Not necessarily.  Some sexual activity was not meant for the purpose of reproduction.  Let alone that some GOP laws do not have exceptions for rape or incest.
   
   And your second paragraph does your usual mischaracterization of others' positions.  When someone says that 'neither extreme should be the law of the land,' what do you think that means?  Do you even read the words that others write or do you just feel it appropriate to make up your own realities for their positions?  When you do that, I'd prefer not to continue to engage with you because it shows a detachment from reality.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Would it sound better if I had said "one that she voluntarily risked creating"?  Not much difference to me.  As far as rape or incest; I have never understood anyone that would prohibit abortion as murder of a child yet somehow determine that the product of a rape or incest is NOT a child and can thus be killed with impunity.  An exceedingly silly (or stupid; take your choice) stance.
      
      If I have mischaracterized your position I apologize.  You have never mentioned killing a child at all, as if the idea doesn't exist, yet you have to know it is the primary objection to abortion, and one held by millions of people.  That apparent lack of understanding of the position held by your (and my) opposition led to the post.  Perhaps a little (or a lot) more acknowledgement of the opposing viewpoint, along with an effort to work with it?

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         I'll address the second point first.  Apology accepted.  I fight for the safety of women, but think there can be some middle ground in there to give some consideration to the unborn.  I used to be a life begins at birth person, now more a life begins at viability outside the womb. 
         
         And we will agree to disagree about forcing a victim to give birth to a traumatically created pregnancy.  That's not just silly or stupid, but insanely inhumane.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            "And we will agree to disagree about forcing a victim to give birth to a traumatically created pregnancy." Even then, is it fair to the life which was created 'trumatically" ? Is it "insanely inhumane" to the child in the womb who will be cut, stabbed and jabbed and everything else an abortion does to a child, who CAN probably feel!
            
            Every teen needs to watch an abortion procedure. Cutting this little life out of the womb is  r e a l l y  awful. Furthermore, every man should know the consequences of his actions, no matter what the circumstances are/were.
            
            Adults everywhere need to TALK to their children about the consequences of sex ...
            and put the fear of GOD and SCIENCE into them!

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzX9Jf--ZyM
               
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHV0lsAqiS8

               replyreport
            2. 75

               Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               '..can probably feel.'  While some scientists think that 'could' happen as early as three months, most studies show that it's closer to six months.
               
               Education is a good thing, and be sure to show some videos to the men that want to commit incest or rape to talk some law and morality into them so that women would not need to make such a brutal choice about something that was forced onto them.

               replyreport
            3. 89

               wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               What I've been saying...but from the other side.  That clump of cells is most definitely NOT a person in the case of the huge percentage of abortions, no more than a fingernail or a tumor is. 
               
               Personally, I have never understood the concept of a god that loves us, wants our love and worship, and also wants us to fear it.  Those three things do not go together in my mind.  Nor is there a reason to fear science; it is nothing but knowledge and while that can be uncomfortable as we discard notions known to be false but that we like and want, that is not a reason to fear that knowledge.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Very logical outlook.
                  
                  What we see occurring now in our society (throughout the West) is what occurs when you remove those beliefs, morals, etc. from the foundation of your society... and replace it with???
                  
                  If the Bible is garbage and you believe no g-d exists... what keeps you from murdering, stealing, raping, lying, etc. ???
                  
                  Certainly you don't believe Law will keep Order... how does that work, when you import a few million people from war-torn or economically ravaged parts of the world, and they don't recognize your laws or customs???
                  
                  What happens when that few million becomes tens of millions over a few short years?
                  
                  What type of society do you have then?  What maintains order?
                  
                  People will find something to believe in, and that something might be much worse.
                  
                  Not at all a comment about Abortion... just society and governance in general.  Maybe they will come back around and replace it with Islam and Sharia Law... pendulum swinging and the necessity to recreate a controllable society... stuff that people don't like to think about when they are focused on tearing down what has been.

                  replyreport
               2. 81

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  The "Clump" is cells dividing toward the completion of a human being. That ongoing Nature-Directed process is Science. To stop the process of a spirit clumping it's cells in an orderly fashion toward a specific creation is Science. What is not provable at this time, (with our feeble capabilities to know metaphysical realities,) is what happens when the cell growth is stopped and the directing spirit is sent back to "spirit land?" (as Jimi Hendrix mentions in the song, "Bellybutton Window.")

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                     As there is no "spirit" to "send back" to anywhere, this whole post is virtually meaningless.
                     
                     Unless you can produce one of these "spirits" for testing and investigation, along with the place they are sent to?
                     
                     The point is that your imagination has produced this, and until you can show that it true and factual then what you believe is irrelevant.
                     
                     (There is also the small problem that over half of all zygotes are NOT "dividing toward the completion of a human being" - they die long before any possible birth.)

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                        ~ so when you die you are just poofing into space.
                        Happy Poofing,
                        I have proof there is Spirit land.
                        ~ which I am thankful to know.
                        It stands to reason there is a lot of traffic going to and fro: Spirit land to Earth land, Earth land to Spirit land.
                        
                        ~ to consider the experience of the soul in the process of abortion is the final frontier for us ignoramuses.

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                           I would be very interested in examining any proof of a "spirit land".  Something more than "Thre is a lot of traffic going to and fro" - a simple statement is worthless when the time to examine the spirit land comes.
                           
                           Is the "soul" the same as "spirit"?

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                              ~ of course!

                              replyreport
         2. 89

            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Always interested in the "why" a person chooses a time frame for "personhood".  The idea of viability outside the womb makes no sense to me for a couple of reasons.  First, it is a moving target, and one that is always a soft target (what is "viable" is different for a different hospital or doctor).  There is also the question of just what "viable" means - survival on it's own (won't happen until mid to late teens) or survival with all the medical help centuries of learning have given us.
            
            A traumatic pregnancy - you are still ignoring the person that is being killed.  He/she exists, and is not a figment of imagination.  I would have to say that "insanely inhumane" applies to those that will kill rather that be a little uncomfortable (or a lot) for 9 months.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               'A little uncomfortable (or a lot) for 9 months.'  Man, you do not understand trauma.  A child born of incest or rape would be a daily reminder to the person of how that child was made. 
               
               And like I said, I don't assign personhood until they are viable outside the womb, medically.  Not economically.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  And if the child lives across the country, 2,000 miles away with zero contact?  Still a daily reminder?
                  
                  I think not.  No one has ever said the victim of rape must keep the child to raise it.
                  
                  That's what I mean - that medical definition of "viable" is a moving target, always changing.  One day we will have "test tube" babies, children that have never seen a womb.  What then?  Ban all abortions, as some states are doing now and with huge negative results?
                  
                  There has to be a better way.  I've heard (but not verified) that brain waves from the frontal lobes (that only people have) can be detected in the womb.  How about that (if it is true) for a definition of "personhood"?

                  replyreport
3. 93

   IslandBitesposted 2 months ago

   As far as rape or incest; I have never understood anyone that would prohibit abortion as murder of a child yet somehow determine that the product of a rape or incest is NOT a child and can thus be killed with impunity.  An exceedingly silly (or stupid; take your choice) stance.
   
   This.
   
   If you are going to oppose the right to choose for religions reasons or because "it is a murder", then you have to oppose any kind of abortion, at any time. If not, you're only a hypocrite and you can spare us of your fake moral outrage.

   replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

   don't burden yourself over it, wilderness, you are going to poof into non-existence when your heart stops beating.
   
   For me, if that were the case, life would be much easier. I could do any damn thing I wanted with no consequences. I would try to get away with all kinds of things, like stealing, lying and cheating. I would not have a conscience. I would not consider my actions in a bigger scheme of things.
   
   The great mistake of criminals is thinking they can get away with their self-oriented actions. Unfortunately for them, they usually get caught and have to face the consequences of what they have done in their life-time. But some do not get caught. For the victims of their abuse, there is no justice. Would it be okay with you, if terrible people get away with their crimes?

   replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

   Is it okay that people get away with murdering their offspring?

   replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

   MY body MY choice?
   
   Q. Should a woman be expected to get permission from the father of the child to terminate the pregnancy which they BOTH caused?
   
   I say, "YES!"
   
   The soul, once it joins the union of the egg and sperm, which is right at the moment of conception, is half the mother's and half the father's responsibility. The woman puts the father in a very unfair position as she takes away his rights to fatherhood in regards to the destined-to-be child.
   Maybe its her body, but its THEIR child.
   
   Men really need to consider this before unzipping their pants.
   Do men have brains at that moment? I guess not.
   
   Have pity on them, women ... after all, you know you want love more than sex, but that's not how it is with them at that moment ... so, don't let them unzip. (That's what I would tell women when they find themselves in these situations.)

   replyreport