|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 15:12:41 GMT -5
You keep saying the baby is dead or dying in the womb. That is not a criterion. The life or health of the mother is the criterion. That's a big part of my point. Of COURSE slippery slope is a factor here. And so are the whoops and hollers and wide-as-Joker smiles and clapping and cheering when the New York bill was signed.
Imagine if, instead of the cheering and smiles and pink ties and whoops, Mr. Cuomo had instead appeared serious and somewhat grave and said something like,
"We know there are rare and incredibly painful and tragic circumstances which require a late term abortion, and New York would never want to inflict more pain on a mother going through that. Therefore, I'm signing a bill...."
And folks nodded somberly and looked relieved. Big difference in the message to young women making decisions about unprotected sex, or sex with partners who would not support a pregnancy, or sex at a time in their lives that they could not support raising a child.
The message is important, folks. The message that becomes ingrained in a society that cheers for late term abortions is the message that allows governors of Virginia to talk about infanticide like it's no big deal. It's insidious.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 30, 2019 15:13:43 GMT -5
Oh, cut the dramatics. You're being hysterical. Where do you get "infanticide" from when the governor says a third-trimester abortion should be made by the mother and more than one physicians based upon the fetus having severe deformities or being non-viable? Governor Northam sounds reasonable and rational to me. You sound like what he means by it being blown out of proportion when you throw out shock-and-awe words like "infanticide." Or is it you want politicians who are mostly White men like you who aren't bearing children to be calling the shots and not the woman and her doctor(s)?
Conservatives hate meddlesome, intrusive government overreach. Until it comes to controlling a woman's body. Then they're all for it. Lol at the "white men." If I opined on the planetary status of Pluto, I'm sure you'd find a way to make race an issue there, too. Regardless, I get "infanticide" from the governor's very clear suggestion that a baby could be fully delivered, then killed some time later, after a discussion between the mother and the physicians. What would call that? Maybe a "mercy killing"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 15:34:29 GMT -5
I haven't seen either the proposed Virginia law or the Virginia governor's comments in any kind of context. Therefore, I'm really not in a position to comment specifically on that.
I am, however, happy to condemn infanticide.
That quote in Rob's post, standing alone, makes it sound like a woman could give birth to a living, healthy child and the mom and doctor could decide to smother it. Yeah, that sounds terrible. But it's possible that what they're talking about is, say, Erika's baby -- e.g., one that could not possibly live for long, and would be in agony while it was -- somehow being born alive, and making the difficult decision about whether to take measures to keep it alive as long as possible, or, perhaps, to give it something that would alleviate the pain and simply let it die. That to me would be another kettle of fish. Not having heard the context yet, I'll just say "no, I'm not on board with infanticide."
And before you want to jump all over my ass for the above, by the way, you might want to keep in mind that a couple of years ago this was the terrible decision we made with regard to my very much beloved father -- to put him on morphine to alleviate pain and let him die rather than take extraordinary measures to keep him alive and a mere miserable shell. Jump on my ass for being cruel and heartless and I will rip your fucking head off, and that's a promise. Sometimes terrible decisions are made out of love.
ETA:
If you think messages are so important, c.e., you might also consider the many messages Trump sends every day -- condoning white supremacists, supporting child molesters, bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, etc. You know, the stuff you shrug off as not mattering. I think that shit is making far more of an impression on our youth than a photo of some women smiling -- one you've seen, but interestingly (given I fucking live here and follow local news) I have not.
You're extremely selective, to say the least, about when you clutch your pearls about "messaging."
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 15:44:04 GMT -5
There is absolutely nothing morally wrong, either in my opinion or in the Roman Catholic Church's dogma, with your terribly difficult decision about your father. And I'm so sorry you had to go through that. And I would do the same in a similar situation with my parents and have indeed counseled families that it is a valid option in the case of some very severe stroke patients I have seen. And yes, your other explanation for the governor's statement is another kettle of fish, indeed. Maybe he will clarify further.
EDITED TO ADD:
If I had a nickle for every pearl I've been accused of clutching, I wouldn't have to go into work today.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 30, 2019 15:50:06 GMT -5
I haven't seen the Virginia law, either. But the Governor's comments are pretty clear, in context, as can be heard in the clip. Here's more, in print: www.nationalreview.com/corner/virginia-governor-defends-letting-infants-die/Note that Northam apparently seems fairly ignorant of what's in the Va law, just like us. But he's going on the radio and "explaining" it. What I quoted from him is what he thinks the proposed law would do (and many people are saying he's wrong in that regard). And he seems to think that would be okay, to have a complete delivery--even possibly resuscitate a distressed fetus--then have a discussion on whether or not to "abort" it after the fact. I'm sure there will be some sort of correction, some sort of "clarification," but what he said was stupid and horrible, in my view. And that's my point here: regardless of anything else, it's over the line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 16:00:04 GMT -5
When I get time, I'll take a look at the Virginia thing. My first reaction to Rob's quote was definitely "gaaah, no." But context can be really important. Especially since, as I know from some experience, sometimes one does muddle what one is saying.* Sometimes an awful sentence, taken in context, isn't actually so awful.
Now I'm curious and I'd like to know. I'm not ready to defend either the Virginia law or the governor otherwise. The New York thing I'm happy to defend because I know about the background and what the bill is intended to do. I think they've done about as good a job as the law can do to allow some compassion for the Erikas of the world while cutting things short of, yanno, infanticide.
I have to say, finding both a woman willing to abort a perfectly healthy infant at eight months just for the hell of it, and also finding a doctor willing to do it -- I think either would be pretty damn rare, but finding both and bringing them together -- that would take some work. If that rare dodo of a pairing exists, yeah, that's yucky, but I think the law should address (the still uncommon but much more likely) situation of an Erika. Really, truly -- most women who carry that long want the baby and are terminating the pregnancy for very sad reasons. I don't want to judge them or make life even more terrible for them, any more than I wanted judgment on my decision with regard to my dad.
*ETA
I'm not sure how many of you have had the experience of being recorded speaking when you weren't just reading a prepared speech. I have -- both videos and transcripts. I'm reasonably articulate, but sometimes I still listen or read and wince -- what I had in my head isn't exactly the way the words came out. Generally, the context makes all clear, but still. I'd like to see the law and any clarification that came before or after than comment. I think it's already clear that I'm not on board with infanticide, if that's really what they're talking about.
It's honestly kind of hard for me to imagine that Virginia is actually planning to enact legislation permitting infanticide, so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 30, 2019 16:05:52 GMT -5
Just fyi, Northram was--I guess he still is--a medical doctor. Neurology, I think. And that--in my view--makes him look worse, as he shouldn't be fumbling around on this sort of stuff (assuming that he eventually "clarifies).
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 16:16:01 GMT -5
Just fyi, Northram was--I guess he still is--a medical doctor. Neurology, I think. And that--in my view--makes him look worse, as he shouldn't be fumbling around on this sort of stuff (assuming that he eventually "clarifies). Worse, he's a pediatric neurologist.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 30, 2019 16:26:50 GMT -5
I, for one, don't object to an unlimited window for abortion, right up until birth, provided that doctors are involved and approve the procedure (because that's what an abortion is: a medical procedure). The one caveat to this--for me--is that those abortions which involve the purposeful partial delivery of a living fetus which could be completed with no additional risk, but instead have the doctor kill the fetus before full delivery should be seen as wrong, as malpractice, as violations of the Hippocratic Oath, etc. That said, I also don't view abortion as some sort of fundamental right. Again, it's a perfectly valid medical procedure that should be allowed/used as necessary on a case-be-case basis (like all other medical procedures). That's magnanimous of you. It's also reasonable and rational. Three things your first post in this thread were not and so I'm left wondering what was it Governor Northam said that you got an endorsement of "infanticide" out of.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 30, 2019 16:34:56 GMT -5
Oh, cut the dramatics. You're being hysterical. Where do you get "infanticide" from when the governor says a third-trimester abortion should be made by the mother and more than one physicians based upon the fetus having severe deformities or being non-viable? Governor Northam sounds reasonable and rational to me. You sound like what he means by it being blown out of proportion when you throw out shock-and-awe words like "infanticide." Or is it you want politicians who are mostly White men like you who aren't bearing children to be calling the shots and not the woman and her doctor(s)?
Conservatives hate meddlesome, intrusive government overreach. Until it comes to controlling a woman's body. Then they're all for it. Lol at the "white men." If I opined on the planetary status of Pluto, I'm sure you'd find a way to make race an issue there, too. What about politicians who are mostly White men like you who aren't bearing children to be calling the shots and not the woman and her doctor(s) is inaccurate? White Republican men are fucking meddling in shit they have ZERO qualifications in and White Republican men are standing behind them backing them in their meddling.
It's not that I have to make race an issue, it's that if I don't point out where race IS a issue, it's likely not gonna be pointed out by anybody else here. You tired of that, robeiae? Maybe you should be trying to find more that White men and women posters so you can get a perspective you would never have otherwise.
I call it a medical procedure. I call your characterization that the governor's "very clear suggestion" was an endorsement of infanticide a ridiculous distortion of what he said.
Just fyi, Northram was--I guess he still is--a medical doctor. Neurology, I think. And that--in my view--makes him look worse, as he shouldn't be fumbling around on this sort of stuff (assuming that he eventually "clarifies). Just fyi, Northram was--I guess he still is--a medical doctor. Neurology, I think. And that--in my view--makes him look worse, as he shouldn't be fumbling around on this sort of stuff (assuming that he eventually "clarifies). Worse, he's a pediatric neurologist.
But still more qualified and more of an expert that either one of you are. He has experience and knowledge. You have opinions and feelings. It's not equal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 16:36:57 GMT -5
Okay. Here's the Virginia bill. lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491 You can see the language that has been stricken. The bill eliminates the requirement that abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy occur at state-licensed hospitals and it would require only one doctor to determine if a pregnancy threatens the woman's life or health to allow abortions in the third trimester, rather than the current requirement of that a total of three doctors make that determination. It does not increase the amount of time that a woman would have to get an abortion. It does not add to the reasons she is permitted to get a late-term abortion, though it does loosen the criteria a bit. The proposed bill required: that "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or impair the mental or physical health of the woman." The current law required that it "substantially and irremediably" impair the mental or physical health of the woman. (So, yanno, if you're not totally crippled and for life, forget it.) In other words, the bill is not saying "hey, yeah infanticide is now cool!" I think that extraordinarily awkward comment likely was meant to indicate that the bill doesn't spell out specifically, e.g., "here's what the doctor must legally do if the woman starts to dilate during an abortion." The law is not intended to address specific medical situations and never was -- it's intended to let the doctor determine what needs to be done medically to protect the health and life of the woman. I'll note that killing a living baby already outside the womb wouldn't do shit to protect the life and health of the woman. I have to say again that I really just don't think we have a rash of women (a) seeking late term abortions for funsies, (b) giving birth to healthy living babies in the midst of them, and (c) women AND doctors who say "pfft, smother it." ETA: Actually, under federal law, the doctor and mom can't just decide to kill it if it is born alive. That's been the case since 2002. www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr2175georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020805-6.htmlwww.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-116/pdf/STATUTE-116-Pg926.pdf
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 30, 2019 17:09:53 GMT -5
Now why you gotta interject facts into an otherwise trite argument with all the usual talking points? People are gonna hear what they wanna.At least now we know how all this "infanticide" bullshit came from...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 17:21:21 GMT -5
You keep saying the baby is dead or dying in the womb. That is not a criterion. The life or health of the mother is the criterion. That's a big part of my point. www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2796I gave an "or", just as the NY bill does. The health or life of the mother is one criterion. Another is the "absence of fetal viability". The latter was Erika's deal. Remember Erika in the OP, the one I keep bringing up? It was not her life or health that was at issue. In her case: That would be why I keep saying that. Under NY law as it stood before the bill you are deploring, Erika would have been forced to carry this baby to term and give birth to it, when it would die anyway (if it was even born alive), and would suffer in the meantime. Erika managed to scrape together ten thousand dollars so she could have the procedure done elsewhere. Needless to say, not everyone has a spare ten thousand dollars, so they would be shit out of luck. Me, I think it's a good thing that this is no longer true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 17:42:44 GMT -5
Now why you gotta interject facts into an otherwise trite argument with all the usual talking points? People are gonna hear what they wanna.At least now we know how all this "infanticide" bullshit came from... Yep. Here's a pro-life person coming to the same conclusion (thread):
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 30, 2019 17:49:17 GMT -5
Let me clarify what I meant. Yes of course fetal viability is a criterion. But it doesn’t HAVE to be in an individual case. And I do sympathize with the plight of Ms. Christensen. And I can see how abortion law in a pluralistic society could allow for that.
BUT...the “OR” is morally problematic to me because in theory, a healthy fetus could be aborted due to a vague declaration that the mother’s health is at risk - which could be physical or mental health To me, that could encompass any reason at all for a late term abortion even severe stress at the thought of putting a baby up for adoption.
I don’t know if that is a way this will play out, but the wording, to me, doesn’t eliminate that possibility or have any stipulation for how grave the medical situation must be.
|
|