Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Abortion thread: (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I must say this has kind of caught me off guard - as anybody who has been paying attention knows, I live in Georgia. I also have two daughters - one who is 15 and the other is 11. While both are directly impacted by this law the older one in theory could be in this scenario tomorrow. (Obviously I know the 11 year old could be too but I’m ignoring that for now just because she’s a typical 11 year old who isn’t sure boys don’t have cooties).
Sobering thought that she could be raped and be forced to carry the baby to term if she somehow got pregnant and no measures were taken before the 6 week mark.*
*I’m basing that scenario on discussion in this thread - if thats not covered in this law then my apologies
Sobering thought that she could be raped and be forced to carry the baby to term if she somehow got pregnant and no measures were taken before the 6 week mark.*
*I’m basing that scenario on discussion in this thread - if thats not covered in this law then my apologies
Last edited by a moderator:
The Football Freak
Footballguy
This bill is freaking ridiculous. Now I have two out-of-state races where I will be devoting extra money and time. Supporting Sen McConnells opponent, and supporting democratic state politicians in GA.
The Football Freak
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Sounds right. Let the mom die and charge the newborn with involuntary manslaughter. However, in stand your ground States, we may be able to allow the mother to take more lethal actions against the threat or perceived threat from the fetus.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
This bill does not go far enough. We need to begin to protect sperm from freaks that are having oral sex and masturbating.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Every sperm is sacred.
timschochet
Footballguy
Let the heathen spill theirs
on the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
each sperm that can’t be found
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
God was clear in the Book of Genesis that Onanism is a sin. Why Onan refused to get on board and impregnate Tamar so that his dead brother Er could have progeny under his name is beyond me. Saddle up big boy, its as the Lord wants.
timschochet
Footballguy
Alabama has a new law that will be passed next week that will make the Georgia law seem pro-choice. I’m not kidding:
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/10/722021684/amid-chaos-alabama-senate-postpones-vote-on-nations-strictest-abortion-ban
The new Alabama law makes all abortion illegal in the state and has a 99 year mandatory prison sentence for anyone who attempts it. The reason for the delay is that there was an exception for rape and incest, and the majority of Republican state senators want it removed. But it WILL be passed next week.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/10/722021684/amid-chaos-alabama-senate-postpones-vote-on-nations-strictest-abortion-ban
The new Alabama law makes all abortion illegal in the state and has a 99 year mandatory prison sentence for anyone who attempts it. The reason for the delay is that there was an exception for rape and incest, and the majority of Republican state senators want it removed. But it WILL be passed next week.
timschochet
Footballguy
It sure seems like the purpose of these laws is to get the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe vs Wade. The thinking seems to be that with Kavanaugh In there the stage is set for a 5-4 reversal.
On the one hand that’s pretty scary stuff. On the other hand you couldn’t offer a better political gift to the Democrats than this one.
On the one hand that’s pretty scary stuff. On the other hand you couldn’t offer a better political gift to the Democrats than this one.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
UncleZen
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
These particular laws are the worst possible vehicle for pro-lifers to take the supreme court. I'm pro-life and I don't even support these.
by_the_sea_wannabe
:sj:
who gives a #### about winning elections, these babies lives are at stake. Have to take a stand sometime. Not in agreement with the entirety of the bill but glad the GOP is finally taking a stand on this instead of just yapping about it to the base.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
I haven't read the Alabama or the Ohio bills, but after discussion with a friend on this, I did look up the GA bill.There ARE exceptions for rape and for medical emergencies, both of which I see mentioned upthread. It says that any doctor performing or attempting to perform an abortion must report it in accordance to rules and regs and fill out forms, etc. As part of what they must report:
I would think that any law anywhere should have similar exceptions at the very least for the medical emergency cases.
timschochet
Footballguy
In addition to the abortion law, Alabama is also passing a law designed to “punish false accusations of rape.” According to the law if a woman charges a guy with rape, but the guy is found not guilty, the accuser has to pay for 100% of his legal fees.
You can’t make this stuff up- well you could if you were Margaret Atwood I guess. Alabama and Georgia’s Republicans are trying really hard to antagonize suburban women. Bet they succeed too.
You can’t make this stuff up- well you could if you were Margaret Atwood I guess. Alabama and Georgia’s Republicans are trying really hard to antagonize suburban women. Bet they succeed too.
NCCommish
Footballguy
They aren't babies at 6 weeks. If they were you could remove them and they would be viable, they aren't. And if your guys get voted out then what happens? Lastly I'd be more convinced that alleged prolifers actually were prolife if those same people didn't consistently try to end programs that actually help children and mothers.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
What do you think NC? They seem to be confident they’ve got 5 votes on the SC to overturn Roe. I’m not sure. Thomas and Alito, but the other 3? I can see Kavanaugh. Would Roberts go along? Gorsuch? Not sure.
NCCommish
Footballguy
I've said before I think Roberts actually cares about how his tenure is perceived. Dont get me wrong that doesn't mean he won't ignore or twist precedent but I think he'll only go so far and I dont think he wants to be seen as a partisan hack. So to me Roberts is a possible Kennedy style swing vote. Pretty reliably conservative but only willing to go so far. Gorsuch is very business friendly but I dont know if he is really a full on partisan vote either. I think he may also be thinking about his legacy. So maybe another one who will only go so far. The court changes some people and in time they aren't who you started with.
Herb
Footballguy
I believe Roe v Wade is completely safe from being overturned nationally for one simple reason: the pro-life platform is the only reason for evangelicals to vote for Republicans as that party is currently constructed. And the R's can't afford to jeopardize their hold over that voting bloc. It will forever be an issue that drives those individuals to the polls. Legal abortion goes away, so do they.
joffer
Footballguy
I don’t get it. If you want a case to challenge Roe v Wade, this doesn’t seem like the right vehicle.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Seriously what the endgame for them here? If suburban white women vote D like they did in 2018 Trump has no chance. I agree that there need to be guide rails put around abortion, the dems need to run away from any and all late term laws that don't involve the mother's life, but for R's to think they can turn the clock back to 1950 is just stupid.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I am interested in reading the law. I would be surprised if it is exactly as you state. I could imagine a law that said that if the charges are found to have been unfounded, vexatious, or imposed for an improper purpose that attorneys fees may be assessed in the discretion of the court with a presumption that they should be, but upon not guilty, which can happen for a myriad of reason, that fees shall be assessed, well it would shock me. I guess I'll go look.timschochet said:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Ahh, just as I thought. Tim has overstated the law. The proposed law reads:
Alabama 1975, to read as follows: 21 §13A-6-72. 22 (a) A person commits the crime of making a false sexual allegation if: (1) He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, makes a false report of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, or sexual torture, and whose allegations are proven to be false. (2) He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, makes a false report of rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, indecent exposure, enticing child to enter vehicle, house etc., for immoral purposes, sexual abuse of a child under 12, or foster parent engaging in a sex act, etc., with a foster child, and whose allegations are proven to be false. (b) A person making a false sexual allegation may be liable to the person accused for all costs associated with his or her legal defense. (c) Making a false sexual allegation pursuant to subdivision (1) of subsection (a) is a Class C felony. (d) Making a false sexual allegation pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. (Emphasis added)
Not quite what Tim was initially selling. In fact far enough from it to make one question the motive for stating it as such. I would also note the following as to the actual Bill. False reporting of a crime has generally been a crime in most jurisdictions (I would say all jurisdictions but I do not know all things.) Also slander or liable of reputation has generally been compensable, including attorneys fees in most jurisdictions. So, this Bill is not all that earth shaking, it just gathers into one place what is more or less existing law. Now does it come with a political view, that false rape allegations are so common as to need to be legislated against, almost certainly and I certainly believe so. Is it intended as some political red meat, again I think so, but is it remotely what Tim was selling, not nearly so,
Alabama 1975, to read as follows: 21 §13A-6-72. 22 (a) A person commits the crime of making a false sexual allegation if: (1) He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, makes a false report of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, or sexual torture, and whose allegations are proven to be false. (2) He or she willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent, makes a false report of rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, indecent exposure, enticing child to enter vehicle, house etc., for immoral purposes, sexual abuse of a child under 12, or foster parent engaging in a sex act, etc., with a foster child, and whose allegations are proven to be false. (b) A person making a false sexual allegation may be liable to the person accused for all costs associated with his or her legal defense. (c) Making a false sexual allegation pursuant to subdivision (1) of subsection (a) is a Class C felony. (d) Making a false sexual allegation pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. (Emphasis added)
Not quite what Tim was initially selling. In fact far enough from it to make one question the motive for stating it as such. I would also note the following as to the actual Bill. False reporting of a crime has generally been a crime in most jurisdictions (I would say all jurisdictions but I do not know all things.) Also slander or liable of reputation has generally been compensable, including attorneys fees in most jurisdictions. So, this Bill is not all that earth shaking, it just gathers into one place what is more or less existing law. Now does it come with a political view, that false rape allegations are so common as to need to be legislated against, almost certainly and I certainly believe so. Is it intended as some political red meat, again I think so, but is it remotely what Tim was selling, not nearly so,
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
In cases that are usually he said she said being found not guilty is not the same as proven false.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Also the general effect of such a law is going to be making people who are already afraid to report even more so. Seems obvious. Woman is raped. It's her word against the man's. Maybe she has a rape kit done maybe she's so embarrassed and humiliated she doesn't. Maybe it takes her days to work up the courage to shudder through ignominy of reporting with the almost guaranteed destruction of her character and having to relive the experience over and over. Man is found not guilty even though he did it. Claims she has malicious intent. Which will be the defense right off the bat. Now on top of everything else she has a major financial issue. Which do you think more women will choose? Reporting or not because it just isn't worth it?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Alabama might want to employ an attorney or two who can write an actual sentence. The structure of that Bill, as currently written is atrocious. When one makes a numerical list after a collon one does not move from one number to the next by the vehicle of a period, but by a comma or a semicolon, depending.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
I find this is a pretty common complaint with legislation. And the horrible writing often leads to issues with interpretation and application of said laws.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Are you asking me? I believe I understand the import or gist of the law comes with, and is almost certainly intended, to have the effects you postulate. It is inconceivable to me that this has been such a problem as to need addressing, particularly, as I note, since false statement laws are on the books already as are liable and slander laws. This accomplishes little to nothing other than politic' ing a tragic issue. My only reason to chime in was Tim's massive overstatement, yet again, such that the debate would go down a wrong track based on a faulty presumption. If it fits his politics facts and caution are irrelevant to him. Not so to me. You wont see me posting, as he repeatedly and regularly does what polls say, nor do I go to secondary or third handed editorials when the source information is readily available and then sell those opinions as fact and implying that they are facts that all right thinking people know. I find him dangerous in his certainty and in his prolific volume. I worry that it will overwhelm the less cautious though I probably should not. I feel compelled to offer counterpoint. When I do he often reigns in his worst excesses for a few hours and that is, to me, worth the effort. Unfortunately his shame and embarrassment are short lived and they do not motivate him towards self examination and change.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
I misunderstood your intent then. I was unaware of the context for you. I also try to be as factual as possible so I can understand where you are coming from. My apologies.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
No apology necessary. You are a smart fellow and I always feel we reach a meeting of the minds as to what each other are saying, even in those rare situations where we are not in agreement. I also feel that in those rare situations we each respect, if not adopt, the position of the other. I always look forward to your posts and I always give them fair and open consideration as I believe I can learn a thing or two from you.
At any rate I accept the apology, unnecessary though it was.
timschochet
Footballguy
The description that I wrote was based on a news segment I watched describing it.
Nonetheless, I don’t think It’s nearly the massive overstatement that you claim it is. After all, how are “allegations proven to be false”? The clearest way is a non guilty verdict, obviously. The point of this law is to scare women from coming forward. I don’t think my summary was especially inaccurate.
Your more general criticism of me not going directly to source material is not without merit. But you err in claiming that I do that in order to “fit my politics”- I do it because I am often overly eager to post the news and see what the reaction will be, and too lazy to check the accuracy. It’s a weakness of mine that I acknowledge and need to do better at, but it’s certainly not deliberate.
Your worst error in your post in when you write that you find me “dangerous in my certainty.” Nothing could be further than the truth- I am probably the least certain guy here about nearly every issue. I would make the worst possible ideologue because I find merit in almost every reasonable argument on either side- and that includes abortion. So this is a “danger” you needn’t worry about.
Nonetheless, I don’t think It’s nearly the massive overstatement that you claim it is. After all, how are “allegations proven to be false”? The clearest way is a non guilty verdict, obviously. The point of this law is to scare women from coming forward. I don’t think my summary was especially inaccurate.
Your more general criticism of me not going directly to source material is not without merit. But you err in claiming that I do that in order to “fit my politics”- I do it because I am often overly eager to post the news and see what the reaction will be, and too lazy to check the accuracy. It’s a weakness of mine that I acknowledge and need to do better at, but it’s certainly not deliberate.
Your worst error in your post in when you write that you find me “dangerous in my certainty.” Nothing could be further than the truth- I am probably the least certain guy here about nearly every issue. I would make the worst possible ideologue because I find merit in almost every reasonable argument on either side- and that includes abortion. So this is a “danger” you needn’t worry about.
jonrolly
Footballguy
To me there is a distinction with a clear difference. Found "Not Guilty" means evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt was absent whereas "Proven False" would mean evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt was present.
Because the presumption flips, I would think would be a large hurdle to clear to go from being found Not Guilty to then jump to Proven False.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t disagree- I think that any competent lawyer could prevent an accuser of having to pay the guy’s costs is he is found not guilty. This law will be almost impossible to enforce.
But that’s not the point. That’s not the reason it was written and it’s not the reason I posted about it last night. It was written to deter women from coming forward in the first place. That’s what makes it so awful (IMO) and that’s why my original post about it wasn’t especially inaccurate.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I remember this came up in the Kavanaugh hearings. The claim was that Kavanaugh meant Roe would be overturned, immediately and suddenly now that there was a '5th vote.' I really don't think so. This kind of slow regulation by limiting who can perform abortions, where they can be performed, when they can be performed, seems like the most likely path.
This may be a question for MT, but I also think this is a revisiting of Roe's scientific bases. If viability is defined as heartbeat and heartbeat is defined earlier and earlier by technology then pro-life advocates can incrementally move the clock back, here to the point that it's before the woman even knows she's pregnant. IIRC Roe focused on the quickening as a sort of alternative benchmark for when the fetus/baby can be protected and that was shot down as outmoded or antiquated. But the problem with courts relying on technology or science is that those data conclusions get eclipsed over time.
This may be a question for MT, but I also think this is a revisiting of Roe's scientific bases. If viability is defined as heartbeat and heartbeat is defined earlier and earlier by technology then pro-life advocates can incrementally move the clock back, here to the point that it's before the woman even knows she's pregnant. IIRC Roe focused on the quickening as a sort of alternative benchmark for when the fetus/baby can be protected and that was shot down as outmoded or antiquated. But the problem with courts relying on technology or science is that those data conclusions get eclipsed over time.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
You’re referring to the Georgia law. But the new Alabama law simply makes abortion illegal. They really do think Kavanaugh is the 5th vote they need.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
We'll see. And frankly even if it does pass without amendment, which I doubt (but who knows, AL etc) I don't think Kavanaugh himself would approve and if he did do that then that all of Roberts, Gorscuch and Alito will just outright yank Roe. Say mean stuff about the RW USSC and I might just nod my head and agree but saying it and writing an opinion to do that that doesn't look like political vomit, which I think they do care about, is hard to do.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
Viability is not defined by heartbeat that's why isn't called a viability law. A fetus isn't viable until it can survive outside the womb. That isn't at 6 weeks. So if they really try to do science that won't work .
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if this has already been said.
While I'm disgusted by the passing of the law, I'm not surprised by it at all.
Keep in mind that if the pro-lifers had their way, the law would start at the moment of conception, not six weeks later. I know that, because I used to be a pro-lifer.
So the pro-lifers aren't even satisfied with this law.
While I'm disgusted by the passing of the law, I'm not surprised by it at all.
Keep in mind that if the pro-lifers had their way, the law would start at the moment of conception, not six weeks later. I know that, because I used to be a pro-lifer.
So the pro-lifers aren't even satisfied with this law.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree, but that also means the law has no chance in the courts, even in the USSC, unless viability is overturned as the standard (which I don't think they'll do) or unless they try to define viability backwards. I think as you say this can't be done in a scientifically valid way, unless I'm missing something.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Based on current medicine I really think viability would have to be set at 25 weeks. It's not until then that you get above a 50 percent survival rate.
Similar threads
