Ohio bill would allow pregnant people to sue over unintended pregnancies (1 Viewer)

[Semper]

So, the problem with when and how do we get rights is it is philosophical in nature and not "scientific". It could be because we are created beings from a higher power with some sort of intrinsic value (a religious/Kantian view), or it's because it's an evolutionary concept we came up with to ensure the best survival of the species, or probably hundreds of other reasons/value systems. I don't think it's easy.

Where I've come down on this - I am generally a Kantian/religious type person. So, rights come down to each human being is intrinsically worthy of respect, regardless of what they've done for me or anyone else. But when does that divine spark invest in someone? Is it at conception? Is part of it in the sperm and other part in the egg and it combines to form a soul? Is it at sentience? Is it at first breath (as in Jewish philosophy)? I don't know. I do believe women have this divine spark (for lack of a better term) and are therefore worthy of respect and rights though. So I have one entity that I firmly believe have rights, and another entity I'm not sure does or does not. The idea of treating a fetus as a human soul is not universally accepted by any religion. So, from that perspective, it seems safer to side with the rights of the person I am sure has rights versus one I'm not sure of.

This seems unsatisfactory of course, so I go a bit further. If the fetus is in fact imbued with a soul and so on, and if s/he is aborted, then in my philosophy, they've lived a blameless life and go to heaven. Doesn't sound terrible to me. If they aren't, then there is no harm.

Which goes to my next point. Outside of religion, why is death a tragedy? From my understanding, my death would be sad because I am a sentient being that enjoys my life and I wish to keep living so it has value to me and I want to keep it, and it would also be sad because people who love me would miss me. A fetus is most certainly not a sentient being with fears and hopes and dreams yet, so it would not lose anything because it does not have it yet. And if the mother aborts the fetus, it's safe to say that the death of the fetus is not creating a sense of loss in those who knew and loved it (since no one has actually met the fetus).

It's also why miscarriages are sad, but abortions are not - a miscarriage represents the loss of hopes and dreams of the parent.

So, yes, in general abortions make me uncomfortable, but I'd rather address it by making birth control abundantly available and free, high quality sex education widely abundant, more generous maternity leave policies (like 3 months before due date to at least a year after), tax payer supported child care and preschool, and other anti-poverty measures. That would be a more pro-life society than taking away sovereignty from another sentient being.

@Semper -

I don’t mean this disrespectfully.

But it is so easy to say you would give your life for your unborn child when your actual life isn’t on the line. I mean real easy,

After the kid is here, I get it. I have two and I would make that choice for them without thinking twice

But go back in time 14 years ago and my wife had already had one ectopic that almost killed her. Embryo attached to the Fallopian tube and ruptured. But it grew for 8 weeks first before the tube literally exploded.

I didn’t know my children yet. My oldest was still two years away.

If we would have been faced with her or life or that of an entity which is not viable, and won’t be without my wife dying?

I have no idea what I would think tbh.

I already had to sit for hours while they removed her exploded tube and an ovary hoping she wouldn’t bleed out. I know I wasn’t thinking about the 8 week old embryo that almost made me a widower.

My wife lost a son to cancer when he was 3. She lost another son to a motorcycle accident when he was 25. If given the choice she would die for an unborn child. It is a discussion we had once while watching House I believe. That would have been her choice. I can’t imagine being in a situation like that. And no disrespect taken.

 

[kizzy821]

It's complicated, because what if you already have children that need you. Sacrificing yourself for the one child seem like an easy decision but you will leave all those children without a mother.

These "decisions" need to be up to the woman and her doctor.

Everyone else needs to but out, including the lawman, law makers, the pastors and the church.

Its for the woman and her doctor only to decide.

That's the first thing I thought of. If that same mother committed suicide - she's a selfish birch for leaving those kids without a mother. BUT if she chooses to die in place of the new baby... well that's noble. Humph.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Didnt want to make another thread... so I figured this kind of qualified as a thread covering the State legal actions resulting from the overturning of Roe.

Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes

A person at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can submit the fetus as a dependent on their state tax returns starting next year.

www.npr.org

This whole thing is horrible, and what is coming from it is worse than a can of worms... it is a crate of termites with our Republic being a log cabin.

Georgia and Arizona's rediculious definition of personhood is particularly troubling.

 

[rajncajn]

Didnt want to make another thread... so I figured this kind of qualified as a thread covering the State legal actions resulting from the overturning of Roe.

Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes

A person at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can submit the fetus as a dependent on their state tax returns starting next year.

www.npr.org

This whole thing is horrible, and what is coming from it is worse than a can of worms... it is a crate of termites with our Republic being a log cabin.

Georgia and Arizona's rediculious definition of personhood is particularly troubling.

I think that has always been the main question at hand. At what point should a child be granted rights and at what point, or in what cases allow for the mother's rights to circumvent the child's rights? I haven't dug into either Georgia or Arizona's laws, but I think the good any of us can see in this is that pregnant women now have some source of financial assistance prior to birth to help cover the high cost of pregnancy, regardless if they intend on keeping the child.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

I think that has always been the main question at hand. At what point should a child be granted rights and at what point, or in what cases allow for the mother's rights to circumvent the child's rights? I haven't dug into either Georgia or Arizona's laws, but I think the good any of us can see in this is that pregnant women now have some source of financial assistance prior to birth to help cover the high cost of pregnancy, regardless if they intend on keeping the child.

I just really do not think the current SCOTUS can be trusted to make a rational, scientifically grounded, decision on the point that a person becomes an individual.

So I am hoping none of this makes it that far up the ladder for a while.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Didnt want to make another thread... so I figured this kind of qualified as a thread covering the State legal actions resulting from the overturning of Roe.

Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes

A person at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can submit the fetus as a dependent on their state tax returns starting next year.

www.npr.org

This whole thing is horrible, and what is coming from it is worse than a can of worms... it is a crate of termites with our Republic being a log cabin.

Georgia and Arizona's rediculious definition of personhood is particularly troubling.

I’m going to claim my sperm as well
Is there a legal definition of ‘lots’?

 

[rajncajn]

I just really do not think the current SCOTUS can be trusted to make a rational, scientifically grounded, decision on the point that a person becomes an individual.

So I am hoping none of this makes it that far up the ladder for a while.

Honestly, I don't really trust politicians of any sort to make that call.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Honestly, I don't really trust politicians of any sort to make that call.

Herein lies a problem.

SC Justices are not supposed to be politicians or political figures in any sense.

My father, an epically gargantuan cynic, once told me that very little was actually guaranteed by the constitution. That legal interpretation could limit or outright change the application of most anything, and that the Supreme Court would do so. Not in line with their honest interpretation of origional intent, or even in using the spirit of origional intent updated for modern understanding and application... but rather to advance the political agenda of their aligned tribe.

He viewes them as a defacto extra-legislative political appratus.

 

[rajncajn]

Herein lies a problem.

SC Justices are not supposed to be politicians or political figures in any sense.

My father, an epically gargantuan cynic, once told me that very little was actually guaranteed by the constitution. That legal interpretation could limit or outright change the application of most anything, and that the Supreme Court would do so. Not in line with their honest interpretation of origional intent, or even in using the spirit of origional intent updated for modern understanding and application... but rather to advance the political agenda of their aligned tribe.

He viewes them as a defacto extra-legislative political appratus.

I wouldn't suggest the courts either. Congress would select a bi-partisan panel of 6-8 doctors and scientists. Each party picks half, then the panel independently chooses a person to serve as their non-partisan moderator and tiebreaker.