Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

Actually, depending on what state you are in pregnant minors are considered emancipated and can make any and all informed decisions about their healthcare and by informing their parents you might be violating some major privacy rights. Of course this varies from state to state, so consult your local laws or speak to your friendly neighborhood lawyer.

halonachos wrote:As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

No it's not. This law in specific does not do that.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Can anyone point to any examples of a US civil or criminal court actually adjudicating based on Sharia law rather than state/federal law?

Nationwide Resources v. Massabni, 694 P.2d 290 (Ct. Ap. Az 1984) - determining whether property acquired belonged to the husband separately or jointly to the husband and wife.

Ivaldi v. Ivaldi, 672 A.2d 1226 (N.J. Superior Ct. 1996) - Court defers to the determination of a Moroccan court (applying Islamic law) as to child custody.

In Re Aramco Services Co., No. 01-­‐09-­‐00624-­‐CV. (Ct. App. Texas 2010) - Court enforcing an arbitration agreement requiring arbitration under Saudi (Sharia) law.

Contracts, child custody, and marriage dissolution are going to be the only areas where you see decisions referring to Islamic law.

The child custody one is very disturbing. The state's interest in the rights of the child should preclude applying anything but duly adjudicated state law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

Know what they're doing? What would they NOT know they are doing actually?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have Jewish and Sharia courts which can perform "voluntary" arbitration.

The agreement is embodied in a contract.

The validity of the contract is tested by a real British court, and British law denies or enforces it as necessary.

I'm ok with that.

Yeah but Frazz, you shouldn't be.

It sounds fine on the surface, no harm can be done if it's all voluntary right?

Im a big follower of Maryam Namazi and the One law for all campaign, and some of the stories I have read on her website are truly disturbing. Make no bones about it, there is very little choice in the matter for a great many vulnerable women.
That's alien to tough blokes like us.

I agree completely. Coercion is typically a basis for blowing out an arbitration. Even a hint of it should get the arbitration thrown out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ODG I just realized I may be on the same side as Melissia...

RUN! Its the end times! Sound the Horn of Wienerdog Summoning!

First the majority of Dakkanauts reviewing the possible 6th edition rule set things that GW is actually doing a swell job, and now this?

I am getting scared...

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm fine with banning Sharia law, but can't we also ban the commandments in the same way?

As for the abortion thing, that just strikes me as being pointlessly cruel more than anything...

As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

That could be done through school biology lessons.

The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

I'm guessing it has something to do with Tim Tebow.

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

I'm guessing it has something to do with Tim Tebow.

Speaking of Tim's anyone get a fine maple glazed donut from Tim Horton's recently? Mmmm!

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Because it is something that needs to be done in this situation. You do not walk in to a hospital or clinic and say, "I need an abortion!" and the doctor go "Alright, I got the tools right here just sit on the table. Might feel a little pinch."

Doctors need to see exactly what they are doing, where they are going. A girl could go in there, saying she is pregnant, then not be at all. Then a doctor just tried to perform an abortion on a girl who is not pregnant at all. Contrary to popular belief, doctors cannot completely diagnose you just by looking at you. You see what I am getting at here? You see why doctors need to do this procedure?

The only thing that people are complaining about is that it is required by law to do it. It is required by law to do something that a doctor is going to do anyways.

You do know that women can't just walk in off the street, demand an abortion and get one done that afternoon, right? Because it doesn't doesn't work like that. Like any other procedure there are standard checks that have long been in place.

It's not the way they need to do medical checks is the issue, it's the way they want to make the experience as emotive as possible. In Utah, IIRC, they wanted to make it a requirement that a women has to see images of the foetus and go through prolonged explanations of how developed it is, which appears in part to be what they are doing here. This aspect is just a guilt trip, nothing more.

Pregnancy tests are pretty straightforward, they do them all the time in hospital because it can determine the course of all sorts of treatment and lots of women don't know they are pregnant in the early stages. They don't however need to stick a probe in to prove this point so your idea that a girl could come in and have an abortion operation performed when not pregnant is utter nonsense.

Yes, I realize you cannot walk in off the street and get an abortion and that you cannot have an abortion when you are not actually pregnant because of these standard checks. Because they do this specific thing to make sure that this is not the case, as well as to tell other things about the fetus. I am getting the sneaking suspicion you are not reading my posts at all.....

This is something that is very emotionally taxing on a female. This is something that the doctor should discuss with them before they do the procedure. It is not something that could be reversed, so the doctor needs to get them to understand that there is no going back.

Look at it this way, a doctor will not perform a vasectomy on me.(Not that I have tried to get one) They just will not, not at my age, plus I have no children. They would tell me to go home, think about it, come back in 10 years. They do not want to take that away from me right now. Because I could want kids later on, then what? It is pretty much the same thing. A girl can go in for an abortion and a month or two later, she could be kicking herself all over the place emotionally because that one person did not step up and talk to her about it. A doctor talking to her about what is going on and having her understand the procedure, what will be done, and the gravity of the situation? Gods forbid.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:As to the abortion thing, its making sure that the parent(s) are knowledgeable of what they're doing.

No it's not. This law in specific does not do that.

Obviously, that is why they are explaining absolutely everything to them. The fetus and the procedure.

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Really? Because for somebody they view as barely human, they are going well out of their way to make sure they know exactly what is going on. I mean, look in the past and see at what people have done to others they view as barely human. This seems pretty great in comparison.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

They: some sort of combination of Republicans, Christians and old men.

Them: Women and/or homosexuals.

Haven't you been paying attention Frazzled? These posts practically write themselves!

Kilkrazy wrote:The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Actually at 10 weeks the vaginal ultrasound is the best way to determine whether you're pregnant or not and the location of the fetus. Which, presumably, would be necessary if you're going to get an abortion.

They let the parent(s) as in the person getting the abortion know what exactly they are terminating or ending. If you have an idea of how long the fetus has developed it may change the mind of the person planning on getting the abortion. Most people do not see what they are planning on aborting and just imagine some sort of clump of cells inside of them which is what a fetus starts out as. If the person sees that there is some resemblance to an actual human it may change their mind to not go forward with the abortion.

So if the only thing you have seen of the fetus is the outside of your own body and some morning sickness then its that much easier to be disconnected from the whole thing. If you see that the thing is starting to look like a little person then it may change your mind. Its more or less a test of conviction, kind of like what they do to people seeking sex change operations.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

They: some sort of combination of Republicans, Christians and old men.

Them: Women and/or homosexuals.

Haven't you been paying attention Frazzled? These posts practically write themselves!

Kilkrazy wrote:The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Actually at 10 weeks the vaginal ultrasound is the best way to determine whether you're pregnant or not and the location of the fetus. Which, presumably, would be necessary if you're going to get an abortion.

That isn't the stated reason and purpose of the law, though.

It also isn't a standard procedure as I know from experience.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Also they want to emotionally traumatize them even more than they already would be, because they view them as barely human.

Who's they and them?

They: some sort of combination of Republicans, Christians and old men.

Them: Women and/or homosexuals.

Haven't you been paying attention Frazzled? These posts practically write themselves!

Kilkrazy wrote:The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

Actually at 10 weeks the vaginal ultrasound is the best way to determine whether you're pregnant or not and the location of the fetus. Which, presumably, would be necessary if you're going to get an abortion.

That isn't the stated reason and purpose of the law, though.

It also isn't a standard procedure as I know from experience.

Up until 12 weeks if you are getting an ultrasound, this is what you will be getting. It is possible to get one with a pelvic ultrasound, but it is very unlikely you will get a clear picture or even a picture at all.

As for the stated reason and purpose, can we get a link of the law so we can see exactly what it says in there?

biccat wrote:
The law didn't single out Sharia law except by example:
"The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law"

One doesn't use the word "specifically" when singling something out by example, particularly when the category which it belongs to (cultures) is rather vague. This reads as a guiding principle, and a pair of things one absolutely should not do, one of which is with respect to religion.

If adherents of Sharia are citizens of the United States, are they not part of this nation, or its culture?

I'm pretty sure a chemical abortion is possible at 10 weeks is it not? I' m not what you might call an abortion expert, and whilst I may sharpen my knives with research for other arguments I'm just not that invested in this one.

Kilkrazy wrote:That isn't the stated reason and purpose of the law, though.

It also isn't a standard procedure as I know from experience.

First, the stated reason and purpose of the law are largely irrelevant (Lemon test notwithstanding).

Second, I'm not comfortable discussing this any further. My experiences differ.

Dreadwinter wrote:As for the stated reason and purpose, can we get a link of the law so we can see exactly what it says in there?

Remember, you asked for it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The real effect is to compel women by law to submit to an additional expensive medical procedure in the course of procuring an abortion, thus reducing their ability to obtain one.

after a quick read this are not true. The State offers a list of locations that do sonograms for free.
In addition I see that the abortion provider must also tell the patient the potential risks or carrying the pregnancy to term as well.
And women are exempt from the laws provisions in the reasonable cases of sexual assault, incest, and other violations of the penal code.
Thats just wat I caught on a quick read, all of which are far from the inhuman draconian treatment I'm sure has been painted by it's opponents.

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure a chemical abortion is possible at 10 weeks is it not?

Technically chemical abortions are possible right up until the baby is born (though at some point there is significant risk to the mother). The transfer from chemical to surgical has more to do with national practice (which is itself based on numerous factors) than any particular medical determination. For example, there's a large gap in the way abortions are performed in the US and Canada.

I see

biccat wrote:[

Dreadwinter wrote:As for the stated reason and purpose, can we get a link of the law so we can see exactly what it says in there?

Remember, you asked for it.

Thank you.

Okay, so, the doctor must provide a list of places that the patient can go to in order to get a sonogram free of charge? So the expensive procedure thing is out, if they can get it for free.

They have the option to view the sonogram images and hear the heartbeat. They are not forced to do either. They are only required by law to hear a description of the fetus. So, they are only required by law to listen to a doctor describe what is in their body?

Plus, they only have to listen to it if they do not fall under three categories which involve rape/sexual assault/incest, them being a minor, and their child having an irreversible medical condition or abnormality?

Plus they are providing information on contraceptives and state assistance if they decide to keep the child.

So what it seems like is they are trying to give the woman every option so that she does not feel like it is necessary for her to abort the child. Being provided with information is considered awful now?

Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so, the doctor must provide a list of places that the patient can go to in order to get a sonogram free of charge? So the expensive procedure thing is out, if they can get it for free.

Providing 'a list' isn't the same as providing access. From the experiences of others I know that it can be quite difficult getting access to certain treatments in the US, particularly fee of charge. I know one person who had to travel to the next state for an abortion. There's no point in telling someone young or with little money to go 200 miles to get to a free clinic.

Part of the law that I read was that you had to live within 100 miles of the abortion provider.