Jerry, Moose and I are arguing over here. Here is what I asked Jerry... And I have really gotten NO answer...
One thing I did become aware of recently is the risk that the mother may be depressed / out of her mind. I do agree the the medical professionals do need to consider this when weighing in on their decision.
So are you saying that your grand baby is on life support. The medical professional(s) and parent(s) have decided that the baby is suffering too much and/or will have no quality of life because of massive chronic problems...Please remember the life and death questions we consider when discussing abortion and/or the removal of life support.
- Do you really want someone other than the Parent(s) and Doctor to decide if the plug can be pulled?
- Who would that be exactly?
- What process do you recommend?
- Or do recommend that we keep all babies on life support for ever?
1. Cells within a Woman vs a Baby on human life support
- When does a collection of cells within the woman end?
- Who gets to choose if or when those cells are removed?
- When does baby's life begin?
- Who gets to decide if that baby is removed from human life support?
- Or should women be forced to deliver every blatocyst to term?
2. What if the fetus or baby that is inherently flawed and will die without massive heroic measures and long term life support machines.
- Who do you want involved in making the remove from the woman or "unplug" decision?
- Are you okay with making the Mother carry this dead or dying fetus for months even though it cause her great mental distress?
- Who should make that decision?
- What governmental legal process do you want involved?
3. What if the potentially viable fetus/baby is putting the Mother's life at risk
- Who do you want involved in making the abort vs C section decision?
- What governmental legal process do you want involved?
- Do you support risking the Mother's life no matter what?
Now I am a self professed control freak. I would not ANYONE getting between my wife and I making these types of life and death decisions regarding any of my close family members.
And therefore I am fascinated that others want to put the government in the middle of this issue.
One thing I did become aware of recently is the risk that the mother may be depressed / out of her mind. I do agree the the medical professionals do need to consider this when weighing in on their decision.
Thoughts?
Ps. If you are put on a machine one day and it is the only thing keeping you "alive"... Who do you want authorized to pull your plug? Your family or some governmental law?
80 comments:
PEW Abortion Rulings
PP vs Casey Ruling
Not Donald Trump.
NR Conservative Take on Late Term Abortions
NR Conservative View Part 2
Both of those reference Guttmacher late term abortion data
USA Today Facts and Data
Liberals rejoice because it preserves the right of the person, not the fetus. I know Republicans don’t understand.
Moose
Moose,
You are wasting our time pitting the Mother against the baby again. This is likely why Pro Life people think DEMs are blood thirsty immoral sociopaths.
A viable 26 week fetus and a 26 week preemie baby are the same human whether they in or out of the womb. And therefore deserve similar protections. Unless you are truly a supporter of smothering preemies in their bassinet.
They have protections. That’s the point.
Moose
Moose,
Would you celebrate if a mother chose to stop feeding her 2 week old baby until it died? Maybe because it bad some defects or she found it just too hard.
One should never celebrate a late term abortion. :-(
I don’t know what you’re arguing, but it has nothing to do with my point.
Moose
You apparently want to celebrate that a Mother still has the right to either:
- void a dead or dying baby from her body
- kill her baby to save her life
Sorry but I am thinking celebration is not appropriate given the gravity of the issue. Especially when that celebration is galvanizing people against your position.
It would be like celebrating the freedom to pull the plug on your mother. People may be relieved when Mom is out of her discomfort... But celebratory no...
Am I celebrating? How do you know?
The law is the law. It is not outside the bounds of Roe v Wade.
However, celebrating the protection of the rights of free people is not beyond the pale.
We will have to disagree.
You’re part of the problem.
Moose
There you have it. It is OPPOSITION to infanticide that is "the problem."
Jerry,
I whole heartedly agree that Moose and folks like him are idiots with regard to this topic.
However you have done NOTHING to answer my questions about who gets to choose life or death and when?
Weird. I thought we were arguing about some perceived ‘celebration’. Do decide what you’re arguing and then get back to me. Thanks.
Moose
Furthermore, how am I an idiot for wanting free people to have agency over their bodies while also wanting fewer abortions to occur?
Moose
Moose,
Even with Roe v Wade in place, the baby has rights after viability has been reached. That is probably what folks like yourself seem to want to ignore.
It is not just "her body" anymore. All decisions after viability are about "their" bodies and minimizing the total damage.
This is why the Mother does not get to make the choices by herself. She has to convince the Professionals at her hospital.
And my view is that no self respecting nurturing health professional is going to agree with killing a viable healthy baby unless the Mother's life is truly at risk.
However when you keep focusing on "Mom's Control", you just lose all the centrists and shoot your cause in the foot.
Why don’t you ever discuss what the law actually says?
It’s all fear and emotion from you.
Moose
No fear here. The NY Law explains Roe v Wade well.
A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE:
- THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY,
- OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY,
- OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
As I noted above, the health care providers make the final call. Not the woman.
Exactly within the parameters of Roe v. Wade.
Why are you arguing with me?
Moose
Is it preferable to have government or an insurance provider make the final call. Healthcare decisions should be made between the patient and their doctor.
Moose
I agree with the NY law except it should read 16 or 20 weeks. Not 24.
What I disagree with is the concept of “celebrating” anything related to this topic.
And your continual emphasis on the woman’s rights exclusively.
Pro choicers would fare much better if they discussed both the woman’s and baby’s rights.
And how the medical professionals are responsible for keeping them balanced.
Only persons have rights. And viability is generally agreed to happen around the 24th week.
As for celebrating, I look forward to your anti-celebration posts the next time people celebrate the overturning of gun control legislation. I also don’t recall you complaining about people celebrating the SCOTUS Obergefell decision.
So, it is your inconsistency with respect to celebrations of preserved rights that I am noting.
It’s irrespective of the actual details of the law.
Moose
"The plurality found that continuing advancements in medical technology had proven that a fetus could be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks previously understood by the Court in Roe."
And it will continue to fall as technology improves.
And after viability, that little fetus is considered a human person.
The longer you deny this. The more damage you do to your cause.
"The plurality opinion stated that it was upholding what it called the "essential holding" of Roe. The essential holding consists of three parts: (1) Women have the right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability and to do so without undue interference from the State; (2) the State can restrict the abortion procedure post viability, so long as the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health; and (3) the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.
The point is that viability is what we decide it will be. If it changes because of advances in medicine, so be it.
That said, I await your fight to give welfare benefits to fetus-persons of 24 weeks gestation, especially if you think the State has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of that fetus-person.
Moose
I think we provide plenty of care for both mom and baby.
More Info
The biggest mistake we make is letting some of these moms take the baby home. :-(
They would have a much better life if they were adopted to a more responsible family.
some people (me) who are strongly pro-choice favor abortion restrictions in the second or third trimester.
I’m somewhat ambivalent about what the law should be regarding 2nd and 3rd trimester, but I think fewer abortions should be our goal, and only comprehensive sex education, easy access to inexpensive or free contraceptives, and access to medical care will accomplish that. Prohibition will not and cannot.
Moose
Laurie,
Same as or different from the NY law?
its been my impression that late-term abortions are nearly always due to medical complications for mother or fetus and not because the mother is depressed and aborting a healthy fetus. I think there is a lot of agreement that women and their doctors should make these tough decisions.
Laurie,
Agreed. Not sure where these proliferation met all these sociopathic killer doctors that they fear so much.
Do we really want to give the Donald Trump's of the world a role in these matters?
--Hiram
Moose, I like what you've said above; I just have a few thoughts. I agree with Laurie, too, for the most part. I'm thinking there is a compromise to be made. First, no abortion after fetal viability except for the life or /reproductive/ health of the mother. Such are fatal for the baby and becoming more dangerous for the mother than a live birth. I'll even throw in an exception for gross fetal deformity. That puts me in line with about 70+% of the public. (rape and incest exceptions should be handled prior to viability.)
Prior to viability, and if the law were a magic wand, I would want to limit abortions for sex selection, for birth control and for vanity reasons. For economic circumstances is where I would want to have "informed consent" and counseling to minimize the economic and psychological consequences, as well as safety standards to insure "safe, legal and rare."
Obviously, avoiding unwanted pregnancies would help, but I dislike having government intrude in any of that, being unconvinced that "comprehensive sex education" or "free birth control" have an effect either way, depending on exactly how such things are done. I think the push of "pro-choice" fanatics has taken us to the point where the old social norms, which held back those unwanted pregnancies, are no longer effective, and the law can never take its place.
My overarching point is that humans will be humans. Complete prohibition (keeping the exceptions) will not and cannot achieve what Pro-Lifers desire, except that of making abortion a criminal act, thus driving it underground. It's just not possible.
So the question remains, how do we educate and support people, arming them with the best information in order to make the best decisions? And when even that inevitably fails for some, how do we still support them, or what are the repercussions?
Moose
But those conversations can't be had, because both extremes are completely dug in to their trenches.
Moose
Jerry,
It really makes no sense to say that you agree with Laurie and then to say that you support government control over pre-viability abortions....
And of course your idea that keeping kids stupid will help is not correct.
Moose, you have pointed out the contradiction in the whole debate-- trying to insert the law into what should be personal moral decisions is far less than a perfect solution. Where you lose me is in suggesting "we" (I assume meaning government) should "educate and support them," because that doesn't work. And if by chance, as I prefer, you mean society in general, I think it is better if we do NOT support choices like casual sex, careless sex, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. I think the "best decisions" are made when people understand the wisdom of the society around them-- the common morality. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams
You are correct that "absolutists" at both ends make solutions difficult, which is why I proposed the compromise I did. IMHO, the NY law, and especially the celebration after it, are far left, if you will pardon the term, of the compromise of Roe v. Wade in general, which I believe my compromise reasonably represents in specifics.
Is supporting people who find themselves in a tough situation the same as "support(ing) choices like casual sex, careless sex, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions", especially when you consider that another life is involved? I do not think so. People are going to make mistakes or get careless no matter how much you chastise them.
The "common morality" of Americans is "rugged individualism", which you can firmly place at the feet of people such as yourself who scream "SOCIALISM!!" every time the idea of "community" comes up. So, you teach people to be rugged individualists but then expect them to somehow understand "the wisdom of the society around them"?
Such is the contradiction of Conservatives.
Colorado had great success by simply offering free Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives. Imagine what would happen if you also include proper, comprehensive sex education.
Moose
Jerry,
Then we had better write a new constitution, since we are all sinful humans.
Moose,
Jerry is apparently a fan of keeping young men and women ignorant and unprotected, then punishing the sinners and their children when they fail to stay on the celibate path.
It is kind of like taking the road signs and guard rails down on a curvy mountainous road, then sending new drivers up there in the dark with dim headlights... If they crash, apparently they deserved the consequences.
And the adults who took down the signs and guard rails seem to feel superior.
Both of you miss what is meant by "education." Teach them how to put a condom on a banana, give them a free condom, and they will put it on the banana. If their parents teach them that the sulfa drugs are effective against STDs and unwanted pregnancies, they will listen, mostly. Those drugs are sulfa-respect, sulfa-control, and sulfa-denial. Pass all the laws you want and some people will violate them. Laws work best when they "educate" people as to what the moral standards of the society are, so they do not have to think them up all on their own. That is the great liberal self-deceit, that they CAN think those things up on their own.
And no, Moose, supporting people who find themselves in a "tough situation" =through no fault of their own= is always the right thing to do. Helping people who got themselves into a "situation" to get out of that situation or to help themselves make it better for all concerned is a lot trickier. Remove the consequences of bad choices and you get more bad choices. A quick, easy and legal abortion, paid for by the State, removes the consequence of careless sex. Guess what? abortion shoots up
That was a whole lot of Conservative double-speak gobbledygook.
Wow.
Moose
By the way, here is the article that goes with that graphic.
"Another explanation could be that there are fewer unintended pregnancies. A study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that this pattern was probably behind a decline in the abortion rate of a similar magnitude between 2008 and 2011. In turn, it attributed the falling numbers of unintended pregnancies to increased use of contraceptives. During that period, birth and abortion rates dropped in tandem. Data on unintended pregnancy rates are not yet available for 2011-2014, but the authors suggest this may be a continuing effect.
Mr Trump has also vowed to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which among other things provides cheaper contraceptive choice to women. Only 16% of America’s households live below the federal poverty line, but half of all women who had an abortion in 2014 did. They are the group most likely to benefit from the ACA. Culture warriors may rejoice if affordable contraception and access to abortion services are restricted further, but the consequences could be to reverse a trend that has been on the decline for decades."
Just a reminder of some of the social good gained by not making women bear babies they did not want and could not afford.
But John, they made a mistake, therefore THEY MUST PAY!
Do I sound Right-wing enough?
Moose
Moose,
Good likeness...
And I would be right there with them if it wasn't the child(ren) and our society paying a LOT of the bill for their mistake...
I mean what does one think the child born of an irresponsible, amoral, sinful non-believer will grow up into... :-)
President?
Moose
Is it remotely possible that the AIDS epidemic frightened young experimenters sufficiently to produce the same consequences as your vaunted "education and birth control"? And I think you two are arguing from the extremes; one for no consequences (dumping them all on society) or imputing to me the desire for massive consequences, neither of which is my position. It is not only rational but moral, unless you are a victim of liberal morality, which is certainly possible.
The other thing you should notice is that abortion rapidly increased when it was made legal. Girls used to get pregnant and have the baby; then they got pregnant and had an abortion, and after that, both declined. It makes perfect sense, if you think about it. Pregnancy had consequences-- a baby. When abortions became safe and legal, they ceased being rare and became common. When the social stigma of unwed motherhood was beat down, more kids were born and some fewer were aborted, as both declined.
Jerry,
You have such strange ideas sometimes. When the answer is plain. and simple.
We are not dumping the consequences on society. Society just bears them in more welfare, more crime, more unlucky kids...
You talk as if society willingly offers no-strings welfare, allows crime, and deliberately fails to educate children. You have some strange ideas sometimes.
'Is it remotely possible that the AIDS epidemic frightened young experimenters sufficiently to produce the same consequences as your vaunted "education and birth control"?'
You're kidding, right? There was a MASSIVE education campaign about safe/safer sex...once the misinformation was beaten back by science and the Reagan Administration grew a sense of decency with regard to the epidemic.
"When abortions became safe and legal, they ceased being rare and became common. When the social stigma of unwed motherhood was beat down, more kids were born and some fewer were aborted, as both declined."
And they continue to decline. There's no need for the morality police.
Moose
Jerry,
Actually...
- the unlucky kids do get "no strings" support
- while their parent(s) has to go to work
- often leaving kids to their own devices
- gang recruitment then becomes easier
- then the kids are arrested and we pay to incarcerate them
And the cycle continues....
I wish you would settle on one stereotype of the poor. Either they are irresponsible and incapable, or they are working and leaving their subsidized kids to the education system to educate.
None of which should factor into the (at least the 3rd-trimester) abortion debate unless you want to follow through with your idea for forced abortions and sterilization for those you deem unworthy of procreation.
Moose, I'm never going to talk you out of "There's no need for the morality police." You are a liberal, and a liberal believes that every person is born with, or can easily find, a "perfect" morality for themselves. And that will align with every other human on the planet, and nobody will cheat, cut corners, seek advantage, or fail to live up to that altruistic common standard of behavior. Conservatives would like to believe that, but we put up the guard rails and the yellow lines just in case.
"Conservatives would like to believe that, but we put up the guard rails and the yellow lines just in case."
And allow your own people to live and work and play outside those lines without consequence. How delightfully hypocritical.
And just how do you expect to have a "common standard of behavior" when you don't believe in the communal nature of society?
Moose
Jerry,
I am answering over at ACEs and Consequences
Society exists, with or without the "communal." Society comes together where there is a shared interest and benefit, and where individuals cannot accomplish a common goal. Top-down societies do not work because they deny fundamental human nature. Again, our government is suited only for a people who are guided by an internal moral system, shared with the society at large.
"Society comes together where there is a shared interest and benefit, and where individuals cannot accomplish a common goal."
SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!
Moose
Bull twaddle!!!!!!!
The difference between "freedom of association" and voluntary organizations and control of everything by the Almighty Socialist State should be obvious to anyone. Except socialists, who don't care.
Jerry,
As always... You volunteer to live in the USA...
You are free to leave whenever you wish...
No jerry, government that is unresponsive to the citizenry is what Republicans have created. Oddly, all-powerful government is the result.
A truly democratic republican government, responsive to the people who they serve, is what Liberals advocate for. Again, oddly, that's Socialism to you.
Moose
Moose,
I think our government is doing great!!!
You also are free to move to a "better country"...
As always, YOU may leave, or you can accept that some people disagree with the edicts of your dictatorship.
"No jerry, government that is unresponsive to the citizenry is what Republicans have created." I see. So when 75% of the people want a wall on the border, and Democrats say no, never, no how, they are just being responsive? Sorry, but it doesn't even make sense. The whole essential of being a liberal is that you are smarter and better than the rest of us and that, through political power, you will MAKE us do what is best for us. If Democrats were "responsive," how could they claim to be special?
No dictatorship here... The laws prevent Trump from doing that. Thanks Heavens... :-)
And apparently only 40% strongly favor a large expansion of the current barriers.
Probably in part because Trump is for it.
That is why Trump lost points for shutting the government down over it. :-)
Jerry,
Off topic... But what modern country do you think is better than the USA?
How about when 2/3rd is the country think raising taxes on those making millions of dollars per year is a good idea and the Republicans say no, are they being responsive?
We can play this stupid game until the cows come home, but the point remains that Republicans believe in the authority of an autocratic government and Liberals believe in the authority of the people working through their government.
Moose
Moose,
It really does not matter what people want.
What matters is who votes, and what they want...
Within the rules of the country's political system.
Somehow DEMs have to get more of their "tax the rich" supporters to vote in more districts.
Moose,
Okay. I had to look up autocratic...
"Autos in Greek means "same" or "self", so in an autocratic government all the power is held by the leader him- or herself. Autocratic governments are often called dictatorships, or sometimes autocracies. In everyday life, a teacher, a parent, or a football coach can all behave like autocrats as well."
Where do you get this stuff?
60+ MILLION people voted for both Trump and Clinton...
Both sides work through government to try and accomplish what they think is best for the country... Just because over 60 MILLION voters disagree with you does not mean they want an Autocrat in charge.
How can the members of both Tribes be so GOOFY???
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
And the problem with direct democracy (aka public opinion surveys or even elections) is that it requires a well-informed and thoughtful populace to function properly.
Maybe Moose is correct about some Conservatives after all.
Maybe they would prefer a Dictatorship...
"And the problem with direct democracy..."
And the problem with Right-Wingers such as yourself is that you change the subject.
I was never talking about direct democracy. You were the one who starting talking about polling.
"So when 75% of the people want a wall on the border, and Democrats say no, never, no how, they are just being responsive?"
Moose
"Maybe they would prefer a Dictatorship..."
Of course they would. they squeal with delight every time Trump signs an Executive Order or talks about a National Emergency or acts like a bully.
Remember, when Congresspersons stand up to Trump, they are doing so because they are the direct representatives of actual citizens, but Right-Wing talking heads think it's an affront to our country.
Moose
Post a Comment