Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Back to Abortion Logic

Enablers took a hard turn and we ended up here...
Should a Mother have the right to:
  1. smother the 26 week old preemie in it's incubator
  2. have a Doctor slice up the 26 week old fetus
Rationale?


If she does 1 or 2. What consequences should she face?
Rationale?

28 comments:

Sean said...

You've lost the plot again, John.

Post-viability abortions are already heavily restricted in the state (and most states for that matter). You refuse to reckon with the logical conclusion that comes from conservative attempts to ban abortion -- and that's that the woman who has an abortion under such circumstances should be treated as a criminal.

The fact that you (and pretty much all conservatives) refuse to treat her as such shows that you don't in fact find her competent to make critical decisions about her life.

And the reality that this idiotic post is what you've taken out of that discussion shows that you just don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Should a Mother have the right to:

smother the 26 week old preemie in it's incubator?

Is that a matter in dispute? The answer, I would think, would be no.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

There is an easy answer given the views people have. If abortion is murder, than all those who aid and abet the procedure are murderers. The logic is impeccable, and given the premise, I would certainly agree with the conclusion. So why do pro life people have a problem with the syllogism?

--Hiram

John said...

So if a Mother does "smother the 26 week old preemie in it's incubator?"

What punishment would you recommend and why?

John said...

What if an exhausted new Mother hires someone to "smother the 26 week old preemie in it's incubator?"

What punishment would you recommend and why? To who?

Anonymous said...

What if an exhausted new Mother hires someone to "smother the 26 week old preemie in it's incubator?"

She would still be guilty of murder. Under the law of principals, the principal is just as guilty as the aider and abettor.

What punishment would you recommend and why? To who?

Murder is murder and the standard punishment would apply.

--Hiram

John said...

So if a Mother has a Doctor abort her 26 week old fetus in a State that bans this procedure?

What punishment would you recommend and why? To who?

Rationale?

Laurie said...

You do realize that the vast majority of abortions take place in the the 1st tri, right? if someone is choosing an abortion at 24 weeks it is highly likely the fetus has serious health problems. I would have had an abortion at 24 weeks if my fetus/futire child has serious health problems / disabilities. My right to make that decision feels like religious freedom to me.

Please feel no need to reply because I really dislike this topic and the well worn arguements that are always made. I believe my comment is perhaps something new to the topic.

John said...

I am perfectly aware that that most abortions occur in the first trimester. The challenge is that Pro-Choice folks like to talk in absolutes just like the Pro-Life folks. (ie Mother should always have choice vs Mother should never have choice)

So if you would have an abortion at 26 weeks because of baby health concerns... Would you smother your preemie at 26 weeks because of health concerns?

John said...

For anyone who is new to this debate... I am technically anti-abortion pro-choice up to ~14 weeks.

I would prefer if adults would prevent pregnancies rather than terminate them. However if they are irresponsible and become pregnant with unwanted child, I sure want them to terminate it quickly or give it up for adoption rather than be irresponsible, incapable or neglectful parents.

As for killing a late term fetus or killing a preemie due to severe birth defects, I have no problem with this however I think society should have some say in when that specifically is allowed.

Of course I am also a supporter of physician assisted suicide...

Laurie said...

If my 26 week old had serious health concerns / disabilities I might choose not to consent to certain medical procedures that would prolong the child's suffering. This is all way too hypothetical.

If you are really curious about the difficult decisions many women have to make regarding their midterm pregnancy it shouldn't be that hard to find some of their agonizing stories online. I am not inclined to find them for you as I really don't want to debate this topic.

John said...

"This is all way too hypothetical."

Seems pretty concrete to me, for some reason many people see a preemie and a late term fetus as very different types of creatures with different rights. I think it is interesting how "in womb" or "out of womb" changes the child so much for those folks.

Laurie said...

you are so dense. you are like a little dog that gets ahold of a favorite talking point and won't let go.

Nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it’s often in very complex circumstances — the kind of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available.


you reaaly don't need to lecture me because I already think routine abortions should take place in the first trimester and second term abortions shoud be for when their are complications in the pregnancy. btw, it is illegal to abort a late term fetus.

Laurie said...

with my students we talk about the difference between friendly teasing and mean teasing. My intent with the insults is the friendly variety (mostly). Kudos to you for your high standard of not insulting people.

John said...

I am not lecturing you, I know we share a lot of common ground on this topic.

And I am okay being dense if it keeps me from being bumped around by the political winds.

Anonymous said...

"if a Mother has a Doctor abort her 26 week old fetus in a State that bans this procedure?

"What punishment would you recommend and why?"


I would recommend no punishment. That's because I don't believe abortion should be a crime. And that doesn't seem to be much different from what I understand to be the pro life position. While they want abortion to be illegal, they don't seem to what to punish anybody for it. As much as they talk about abortion, they hardly ever talk about how they would enforce the positions they advocate. Indeed, when pressed they work very hard and very implausibly on rationales that can be used to avoid the question. The "politicians don't answer hypothetical questions" argument is one such rationalization.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Now up above you said...

"Murder is murder and the standard punishment would apply." to the Mother smothering the 26 week old preemie...

And here you recommend no punishment because abortion should not be a crime.

Now the same 26 week old baby is just as dead after each action... And someone stopped that heartbeat through a conscious action. How do you rationalize this difference?

jerrye92002 said...

I'll agree with Laurie. Again, while I call myself pro-life, like the majority of Americans "with exceptions," I very much like the legal argument, which says that abortion should be safe, legal (and rare) up to 20 weeks, that after that point the mother has implicitly contracted to deliver the child, barring a threat to her life or health. The problem arises when pro-choice people try to make the "choice" an easy one, and I don't think it is, for most, and shouldn't be. That's why restrictions like counseling or ultrasounds make, I think, good sense. Make it easier to do the right thing and you don't have to concern yourself with punishment.

Anonymous said...

How do you rationalize this difference?

I just do. And Pro life people don't. So my view that such actions shouldn't be treated as a crime is perfectly consistent with my opinions. And Donald Trump's view that a woman who has an abortion has committed a criminal act is perfectly consistent with his view. But what a bout pro life people who believe abortion is murder but shouldn't be a crime? How is that view consistent?

--Hiram

John said...

"I just do" is a bit light...

As I mentioned before... Many Pro-Lifers apparently see the woman who smothers / aborts the 26 week old baby as a victim, or not in her right mind... I mean who in their right mind would kill a 26 week old fetus/preemie... Therefore they give her the benefit of a doubt.

Where as they see the one who performs the abortion as a cold logical paid killer...

Besides the very pragmatic view that even if some people think the Mother should be punished. It would not be very popular because most people are sympathetic to the stresses of pregnancy and Mothers. I mean everyone has one... :-)

Therefore they are better off not saying so.

Sean said...

"Besides the very pragmatic view that even if some people think the Mother should be punished. It would not be very popular because most people are sympathetic to the stresses of pregnancy and Mothers"

Well, then, you can't exactly get on the high horse about principles and hypocrisy.

John said...

Sean,
You have been quiet on this topic. Which Mom if any do you want to lock up?

hypocrisy: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

Since I am not strong Pro-Choice or strong Pro-Life, of course I can point out the hypocrisy on both sides. Also, I wonder if thinking someone should be punished but not saying so or showing leniency because others in society disagree would really meet the definition of hypocrisy... I am thinking tolerant people do this often.

Sean said...

I don't agree with the logic that would treat a 26-week abortion as a crime; but if that's the law that is passed, then it ought to be enforced as such. If you consider this a crime, and you would prosecute it differently than you would a similar crime done against someone who is already born then your claims of protecting that life and treating it equally are bogus.

And if you kill a preemie in the nursery, yes, that's a crime too.

I would argue that being born is different than still being in your mother's womb. It always has been (and I think it always will be), from a legal perspective. We don't issue "conception certificates". We don't calculate your right to vote or the drinking age based on when you were conceived. We don't give SSNs to those still in the womb.

John said...

"being born is different than still being in your mother's womb"

Do you think the preemie can tell the difference?
Does it dream differently?
Is it less human?

Thankfully Roe v Wade gave us the concept of Viability. And each year the week number decreases as medicine advances. And a 26 week old is pretty much certainly viable /human now.

"20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive."

So if a stressed out Mother killed her preemie or got an illegal late term abortion, how many years would you give her?

Sean said...

"So if a stressed out Mother killed her preemie or got an illegal late term abortion, how many years would you give her?"

The crime would have to be charged appropriately based on the evidence in the case. Whether it was charged as murder (and what degree) or manslaughter (and what degree) would depend on the individual circumstances.

Are you going to answer your own question? Or are you just going to pick at everyone else's answer?

John said...

I unfortunately really am not familiar with sentencing guidelines, however they should probably be charged with man slaughter or murder. And then let the jury/judge decide.

It is a good thing I am not running for office !!!

Anonymous said...

"Many Pro-Lifers apparently see the woman who smothers / aborts the 26 week old baby as a victim, or not in her right mind."

Well, mental disease or defect can be a defense to a criminal charge, but it's not often a successful one. Many people who are charged with crimes can, in various ways, be presented as victims.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

You know, seeing those statistics on survival of preemies, I can see the Pro-choice side of the argument. Assuming a woman has dithered through 5-6 months of pregnancy and NOT terminated the pregnancy (in my view making an implicit legal contract), then if she is told those statistics and shown an ultrasound and told the risks of the abortion procedure to herself (compared to the risks of carrying to term), maybe offered some help with the child, and given a 24-hour "waiting period" to think it over, she might be expected to make the "right" choice. Why would anyone insist that it be an "uninformed consent" situation, as the folks who call themselves pro-choice do?