Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 13:10:07 GMT -5
And it seems reasonable to me to leave this determination to a woman and her doctor.
Again I note that late-term abortions are a painful and expensive procedure that no one wants to undertake just for fun. (There's some description of Erika's in the OP, for example.) Again I point to Switzerland vs Latin America abortion rates (i.e., outlawing abortion doesn't work). Again I note that politicians are really not all that great at crafting legislation to address all possibly hypothetical situations relating to a woman's health. Again I say that any attempt to do that is doing so under the pretty much imaginary scare-closet idea that rashes of women out there want to undergo a physically painful and expensive procedure just for the hell of it. And that's fucked up, IMO.
ETA:
IMO, legislation that takes that decision out of the doctor's and woman's discretion, instead trying to spell out exactly what should be allowed and shouldn't under various conditions is (a) inevitably going to create new versions of Erika that the legislature didn't foresee, and (b) is just wildly unnecessary, given how incredibly fucking rare -- if it occurs at all, ever -- that a woman will say "pfft, I'm feeling a bit grumpy today so I don't want to have this baby next month after all -- bring on the painful and expensive medical procedure! I'll turn the nursery I've prepared into a yoga room!", and that her doctor will then say "awesome! sounds like a good reason to me! I LOVE doing late-term abortions!"
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 31, 2019 13:51:48 GMT -5
Absolutely, Vince. Cassandra is under the impression most or all women are like her and would never consider an abortion of a healthy, viable term infant for reasons other than to save their life or physical health.
But the Virginia law and the New York law are both written in language that leaves that option open. I can only believe that is purposely done, because there is a very vocal faction of pro-abortionists who want abortion to be available for any reason up until birth, and those are the folks who push for and celebrate these sorts of bill signings. In a world where newborns have been put in trash cans to die, don't tell me it's pearl clutching to think people would consider this option late in pregnancy for no reason other than they don't want the baby.
Cassandra also notes that my pearl-clutching hysteria forgets that this decision should be made between a doctor and the mother. She repeated that again just now:
Well, the New York bill has removed the requirement of a doctor to perform these, and allows other licensed practitioners - midwives, nurse practitioners. Great. Another hurdle overcome for unrestricted abortion on demand. Even Roe v Wade requires a physician to perform an abortion.
The Virginia governor Northam agreed that 2 doctors should be involved in these grave decisions and some think 3, however Tran's lovely bill requires only 1 doctor.
It's becoming more and more evident that New York and Virginia are not doing this only for rare and tragic cases like Erika Christensen, but to thumb their noses at Trump and Pence and the SCOTUS and anyone who dares try or wish to limit the ability of any woman to have an abortion at any time for any reason up to and including during labor,no matter how healthy her baby.
That is damaging to a society, as I said before, in both obvious and insidious ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 14:18:23 GMT -5
You say "pro-choice advocates are just thumbing your noses at Trump and Pence" etc. -- I say "we believe the legislature should keep their ham-hands out of a decision that belongs to a woman, with the assistance of her doctor."
And again I point to places like Switzerland, etc., that does not put such restrictions on women and yet have a lower abortion rate than we do, and far lower than more restrictive places like Latin America. Dodge that point all you like, but it doesn't go away.
Your throwing imaginary scenaries around isn't going to make a dent in me, but if you want to try, here: I've thrown you Erika. I can easily find other real women who have had dire situations that IMO justify a third-trimester abortion. Why don't you find me some REAL women (not scare closet hypotheticals) who had third-trimester abortions for the LOLs. Show me this rash of frivolous third-trimester abortions that justify throwing legal obstacles in the path of women in already heart-breaking situations like Erika's.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 31, 2019 14:54:12 GMT -5
You've missed the nuance in my argument. I have not called for a complete ban on late term abortions like in Erika C's situation. As public policy in a pluralistic society, I would not agree with that. What I have been saying for years, is that how a society views abortion has an effect on how a society views the lives of those who are the most vulnerable, including the disabled and the elderly. Once that morality breaks down, once we see cheers and fist pumps and high fives for abortion on demand through 39 weeks and 6 days and even during labor, society breaks down in all sorts of ways that might not be obvious at first.
It's a very different thing, from a societal perspective, to view abortion as a tragic but sometimes necessary last resort, and to cheer it as a fundamental right for every woman at any time for any reason without restriction.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jan 31, 2019 16:37:40 GMT -5
So, essentially society will fall apart if one or two women a year have an abortion in the third trimester? The country's morality will disappear because.. yeah, I get it.
It always makes me roll my eyes when I hear a conservative talk of the fall of morality because of a few isolated actions of individuals. Honestly, if putting kids in cages (and letting them die) hasn't done it, I don't think the incredibly rare (maybe non-existent?!) case of third-trimester abortion for non-medical reasons will rattle the foundations of America.
Put another way, and I'm sorry (kinda) if this sounds harsh, but as long as you support a racist president who's boasted of grabbing women by the pussy and lies about everything all the time, you'd do well to back away from the moral high ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 18:04:34 GMT -5
You've missed the nuance in my argument. I have not called for a complete ban on late term abortions like in Erika C's situation. As public policy in a pluralistic society, I would not agree with that. What I have been saying for years, is that how a society views abortion has an effect on how a society views the lives of those who are the most vulnerable, including the disabled and the elderly. Once that morality breaks down, once we see cheers and fist pumps and high fives for abortion on demand through 39 weeks and 6 days and even during labor, society breaks down in all sorts of ways that might not be obvious at first. It's a very different thing, from a societal perspective, to view abortion as a tragic but sometimes necessary last resort, and to cheer it as a fundamental right for every woman at any time for any reason without restriction. I am not missing any nuance. What I think you may missing (or ignoring) is how this would work in the real world. Take aside my strong pro-choice stance that the legislature and strangers like you have no business interfering in this very personal decision. Let's look at how this would work. Every restriction you want to add equals another legal barrier in the way of the Erikas of the world, another hoop they must jump through, another delay, another expense. They have to find three doctors, and pay for those three doctors. They have to get all of them to agree that her individual case fits the letter of the law. That might also require lawyers, for whom she will also have to pay. (By the way, a woman in a more remote area may have a hard time finding three doctors to see her.) It may mean litigation. It will surely mean expense and likely delay. Here, you say you don't want to stop the Erikas -- you just want these restrictions to prevent women who just want to get this painful and expensive third-trimester procedure done for frivolous reasons. Let's call these hypothetical women the Holly GoLightlys. But see, in putting up all those extra legal and procedural hoops for women to jump through and all the extra legal language and restrictions, you have inevitably made life more difficult, expensive, and potentially dangerous (I've got to think that in some cases, the delay in getting the procedure will cause medical issues) for the Erikas, not just the Holly GoLightlys.And if you're going to put those restrictions in the way of women like Erika, I think you have a burden to show that they're justified. This is especially true because many (in fact, likely all, or at least an overwhelming majority, but for purposes of this argument, I'll keep it to "many") of the women seeking a third-trimester abortion are likely to be Erikas, women who do in fact have a real and heartbreaking reason for seeking the procedure, and facing pretty serious consequences if they don't get it -- consequences that I'm guessing get more serious as time passes, I think those seeking to put obstacles in a woman's way of getting this medical procedure have the burden of demonstrating that there's a powerful need to have those obstacles in place. At an absolute bare minimum, I think you should be able to show that the Holly GoLightlys exist. That's why I say "can you show me even one real life Holly GoLightly?" Much less enough of them to justify making things even more difficult for the very real Erikas of the world? See, I don't think they exist -- not for this particular procedure, because it's painful and expensive and awful. Women who just don't want a baby have an abortion earlier. If they do exist, they are really goddamn rare, and not only that, but they're going to have to find a doctor who also has no problem performing such a procedure for frivolous reasons. Thus, IMO, you are making life terrible for the Erikas because of a goddamn unicorn.
ETA: This isn't something like, say, insider trading, where there's a powerful incentive to engage in it. This procedure is not fun. Why would anyone want one without a damn good reason? It's not like a first trimester abortion, which is relatively simple. Third trimester abortions are rarely sought even when you count all the Erikas. To me it truly seems pointlessly cruel to put all kinds of hoops and restrictions in to make a procedure more expensive and hard to get when no one wants it in the first place unless they have a damn good reason. If you think I'm wrong -- that in fact lots of women blithely seek a third trimester abortion for frivolous reasons -- then it shouldn't be hard to find me real examples. To warn you, even if you do, I'm going to think that it should be left to the woman and her doctor to determine whether her health is threatened -- that Holly GoLightlys don't justify making the Erikas' road more difficult. (I'm pro-choice; I'd like to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregancies and making it easier to bring up a baby, not by outlawing abortion.) But if you can't even show me that the Holly GoLightlys exist in the first place...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 31, 2019 18:49:43 GMT -5
As more potential replacements for President Pussygrabber enter the fray ( Hello, Marianne Williamson!), I'm just sitting back and taking it all in. Just window shopping. I have a list of things any candidate has to check off some of the boxes before they can catch my attention. Then they have to come strong before they merit my interest. Any presidential candidate who is not for protecting and expanding voting rights and reforming what's wrong with the system and offers no plan for it is not a candidate that will get the time of day from me. Of course Mitch McConnell dumped on the Senate version of the bill warning it give government workers a week off and would be hanging out at the polls looking over the shoulders of voters. The Ugly Turtle dismissed the whole bill as nothing but a Democratic "power grab." What else would The Turtle say? I can get behind any candidate who checks more boxes than leaves them blank. I'm all for keeping my options open. But I don't see Republicans making much of an effort to win my vote. Quite the opposite, really. Republicans are heavily vested in making voting harder, not easier and disenfranchising Black Americans by their pernicious voter fraud farce. And if you're down for that, I can't be bothered by with you.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 1, 2019 16:57:54 GMT -5
So, essentially society will fall apart if one or two women a year have an abortion in the third trimester? The country's morality will disappear because.. yeah, I get it. It always makes me roll my eyes when I hear a conservative talk of the fall of morality because of a few isolated actions of individuals. Honestly, if putting kids in cages (and letting them die) hasn't done it, I don't think the incredibly rare (maybe non-existent?!) case of third-trimester abortion for non-medical reasons will rattle the foundations of America. Put another way, and I'm sorry (kinda) if this sounds harsh, but as long as you support a racist president who's boasted of grabbing women by the pussy and lies about everything all the time, you'd do well to back away from the moral high ground. This post is BULLSHIT.
- third trimester abortions for non-medical reasons are not non-existent. And they may be a small percentage of abortions, but when you're talking several hundred thousand abortions a year, that number really isn't one or two, is it?
- if killing a viable fetus for no medical reason is wrong, then it's wrong, whether or not 1 or 5 or 1000 or 100,000 viable healthy fetuses are killed. Do you think it's ok for 1 innocent man on death row to be executed? It's only one, though. Just one. Should be fine, right? I'm sure it's rare. If we don't care about an innocent man being executed, then yeah, I get it it too, the country's morality WILL take a hit.
- are you REALLY comparing my voting for a cad (and someone who reversed his separating families policy) for POTUS, and pro-abortionists cheering for a codified policy of killing unborn children up to the point of labor, and telling me I should back away from the moral high ground? Seriously?
Do you have any cognitive dissonance for getting more upset about kids in cages (hyperbole of course) than killing 600,000 or 700,000 unborn children per year? Also what's this "letting them die" comment about Border Patrol? I guess honesty is not your strong point today.
At least Cassandra engaged me with a well-thought out challenge and her usual detailed reasoning. I do appreciate that. I think Cassandra is giving too much credit to late term abortion providers and to some women who decide late in a pregnancy that they don't want their baby. And I think she's giving too little credit to how insidious this liberalization of abortion law is to society. I think it creeps into how we view the most vulnerable in our society, how we treat our children, how we view the idea of raising children, how we view marriage, how we conduct ourselves sexually, and more.
But I can see her reasoning.
Finding solid examples of why people seek a third trimester abortion iand how many are healthy fetuses is near impossible. For obvious reasons. I don't think providers want to advertise why they do it, and I don't think women want to talk about why they do it. And the pro-abortion lobby doesn't want this sort of stuff out, either. How else did Kermit Gosnell practice for decades and snip the spinal cords of hundreds of babies born alive?
I will just stop there.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Feb 1, 2019 17:29:22 GMT -5
Except you, the one who wants to prevent those abortions, aren't providing any evidence. So yeah, there's that. And how dare you call me dishonest? Are you telling me kids aren't being kept in cages by YOUR administration?? "Here’s what no one disputes: When the children are separated from their parents, they’re sent to facilities where they are kept in chain-link pens they can’t leave." Oh, they're pens, not cages. Totally different. Disingenuous much? And yes, I am saying you have ceded any moral high ground. You are so blind in your loyalty to Trump you can barely bring yourself to call him a "cad." Fucking seriously? A serial liar, sexual assaulter, a grifter, a shitty and dishonest businessman, and (I suspect as will be revealed shortly), a criminal. You support him. You can't even see the fucking high ground with binoculars so getting all self-righteous about abortion bringing down the morality of the country is imbecilic.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 1, 2019 20:56:09 GMT -5
I feel the same way about your post. Sorry. It's overly emotional and completely devoid of facts. Disingenuous. You don't know the percentage, so talking about percentages, especially in terms of "several hundred thousand" is bullshit. We DO care about one innocent man being executed. We DO care about perfectly healthy babies being aborted. But these two situations are not even remotely analogous. To eliminate the death penalty does not affect ANYONE'S bodily autonomy. Perhaps you'd like to speak to that? Bodily autonomy? To the idea that we, as a nation, should implement laws that prevent a woman from getting an abortion, that we as a society should FORCE her, BY LAW, to remain pregnant? And how far are you willing to go in that force? I'm not talking about using persuasion and pleas. I'm talking about the force of law. Would you put a woman in jail for having a abortion? Would you imprison a woman who tried but failed to have an abortion until she delivered? How far are you willing to go to "save a life?" There you go with the "cheering" again. This has been explained. You reject the explanation, not because you want people to be more somber but because you want abortion to not exist and the fact that it does offends you. And as has been repeated several times, there are parameters for these late-term abortions. Just because you seem to believe thousands of people are faking life and health threatening medical issues doesn't make it true. There it is. You're quoting total abortion statistics again. This isn't about late-term abortions, at all, I think. Bullshit. You know, I spent a few hours researching something you said the other day -- that women throw their babies into garbage cans so of course they will get third-trimester abortions without a second thought. The results were illuminating. I encourage you to research discarded infants and the mental state of their mothers. Do tell. You seem to know exactly what they're thinking, and yet YOU don't want to say. But it's obvious, you assume the worst, and that's one reason why, I think, Mark said what he said. You assume ill of these women and providers, and yet excuse and think the best of Trump, who has demonstrated his moral failures a thousand times. It is rather maddening. Oh FFS. This is like saying how did Ted Bundy kill all those women? There are bad people, celawson. All the laws in the world won't prevent some people from committing crimes. And what's more, I daresay if abortion becomes illegal, the Gosnells of the world will thrive.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 1, 2019 21:00:40 GMT -5
I called out your dishonesty on your "letting them die". No one "let" anyone die. The 8 year old boy? Here's PBS reporting: www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-second-migrant-child-died-in-u-s-custody-this-month-heres-what-we-knowHere's what happened with the little girl, Jakelin Caal Maquin: www.vox.com/2018/12/18/18144434/child-died-jakelin-caal-seven-border-patrolIn both of those tragic cases, the Border Patrol seems to have done quite a bit to help those kids. No one was "let to die". The cages issue started with the Obama admin, and yes they are pens. Have you called Obama out? As far as your moral high ground comments, they would make a little more sense if Trump were pro-abortion. But he's a pro-life POTUS. So that's consistent with the issue at hand. When I voted for him, I took what I saw to be the better of two bad options. And no, I didn't know all the specifics about him like Cassandra did from living in New York. I hoped for the best. Sorry, but all the "evils" of Trump the very flawed man just don't supersede the entire universe of ills. And not everything bad leads to Trump. Not in my world, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 1, 2019 21:34:17 GMT -5
I guess we both have feels today.
I've already stated the law as written is morally problematic, and that ONE is wrong. So the actual percentages aren't relevant.
Then tell New York and Virginia to put some stipulations on late term abortion and don't light up skyscrapers.
Wrong - I want people to be more somber AND I want abortion to not exist.
Whatever, early, late term, or during labor as Ms. Tran would like, it's all pretty horrendous if it's not done for grave medical reasons.
It always comes back to Trump. It's just amazing how far he can get in all your heads. Amazing.
May I quote you the next time we have a gun control debate here?
Perhaps. Notice I am not calling for making all abortions illegal. I'm asking for some stipulations on late term abortions, some more care from people in general about having sex if they don't want kids or aren't in a place to have a child, and no whoops and cheers and lighting buildings when the most aggressive pro-abortion legislation is passed. You'd think I was something out of A Handmaid's Tale.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 1, 2019 22:11:22 GMT -5
I guess we both have feels today. Adorbs. Pardon, but you brought up percentages as relevant when Mark estimated one or two unnecessary late-term abortions. There ARE stipulations. The reason for the celebrations has been covered. You don't accept it. You see evil democrats jumping up and down for joy at the thought of healthy babies dying. Your perspective is fucked up. And I noticed you cherry picked this line from an entire paragraph where I asked you some questions. Don't care to answer? You reject the explanation that people are celebrating less suffering by women and the elimination of unnecessary control over women's bodies, because you think they're lying, because you want abortion to not exist. NOT because you want a more solemn occasion of this helpful and necessary change in the law. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's... what I said. You're not differentiating, so acting like this is about how horrible late-term abortions are is disingenuous. No, it doesn't always come back to Trump. It always comes back to your hypocrisy. Disingenuous yet again, because you asked and I responded to your question: "how else did Gosnell get away with his crimes?" Yeah. See above. And refer back to those questions I asked that you didn't answer.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 2, 2019 9:12:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:15:43 GMT -5
Yes. He should resign. I think most Democrats think so at this point. Not over the badly out-of-context late term abortion comments, but because of the horrendous blackface/klan photo.
He was an adult, that was his yearbook. Zero tolerance for this stuff.
|
|