Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Late term abortions

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

2. The prospective mother isn't exercising rights over the fetus's body.  The prospective mother is refusing to give rights to her body to the fetus.

She's doing both.  At what point does the fetus have any rights, in your mind (again, not talking legally). 

Also, thank you for answering my question above.  I can see where you stand more clearly, though I still don't know where your "line" is, or if you have one.  If the baby is viable, and not for health reasons, are you for not allowing doctors to perform an abortion, and rather attempt C-section (that happens well before 8.5 months). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Terminating its life?

Break that down.  What is actually happening during an abortion?

It's removal of access to the prospective mother's circulatory system.  That's it.  If the fetus is viable and active measures are taken to end the life of the fetus for other than medical reasons other than removal of access to the prospective mother's resources and body, I find that patently immoral.  I'm sure we can agree on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to OP - apparently there was an article front page of the Richmond (Virginia) paper this morning stating that there haven't been any third trimester abortions here in Virginia in the last few years.  Trying to track down a copy.  Find that hard to believe, but possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, matttyl said:

She's doing both.  At what point does the fetus have any rights, in your mind (again, not talking legally). 

Also, thank you for answering my question above.  I can see where you stand more clearly, though I still don't know where your "line" is, or if you have one.  If the baby is viable, and not for health reasons, are you for not allowing doctors to perform an abortion, and rather attempt C-section (that happens well before 8.5 months). 

At every point at least post-(even minimal) viability the fetus has moral rights, in my opinion.  They change and expand over time, particularly with respect to increased viability.  They just don't make it morally necessary (though I find it morally preferable in some instances) that the mother give up autonomy over her body.

Edit: and thanks for discussing.  It's nice when people discuss and don't freak out and knee-jerk respond to positions I've spent thirty years considering, even when the position sounds crazy before thinking about it.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, matttyl said:

Back to OP - apparently there was an article front page of the Richmond (Virginia) paper this morning stating that there haven't been any third trimester abortions here in Virginia in the last few years.  Trying to track down a copy.  Find that hard to believe, but possible. 

Pretty sure they're illegal without three doctors signing off that it's medically necessary.  Don't know why it would be hard to believe there aren't any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Pretty sure they're illegal without three doctors signing off that it's medically necessary.  Don't know why it would be hard to believe there aren't any.

So in the entire state there hasn't been one instance of medical necessity in the past few years to have a third trimester abortion?  Not a single one?

Here's the article.

Edited by matttyl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, matttyl said:

If the baby is viable, and not for health reasons, are you for not allowing doctors to perform an abortion, and rather attempt C-section (that happens well before 8.5 months). 

A scheduled C-section isn't really a viable option until 37 weeks or so.  I can see 35 as a scheduled thing... but when you're talking about 21-30 weeks, I don't think you'll ever find a doctor who would be willing to do that on a consistent basis, vs. willing to perform an abortion.  I think I'd certainly prefer post-viability the chance at a life, but being born prior to that week 30 development point, realistically I'm not sure that's exactly a gift in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, matttyl said:

So in the entire state there hasn't been one instance of medical necessity in the past few years to have a third trimester abortion?  Not a single one?

Here's the article.

Not where they'd have the ability to convene a panel of doctors.

Instead, what happens is the doctor will do what he thinks must be done and inform the family that while he did everything he could "unfortunately there were complications with the pregnancy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with you. What I wrote is not my scenario but that of pro-lifers, and it’s wrong to deliberately paint them as something they’re not. They don’t see it as slavery. 

Racists often don't see themselves as racist.  Does that mean they aren't racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

Not where they'd have the ability to convene a panel of doctors.

Instead, what happens is the doctor will do what he thinks must be done and inform the family that while he did everything he could "unfortunately there were complications with the pregnancy."

Which would be a third trimester abortion, and thus would be counted.  Or am I missing something?  That would still be counted somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matttyl said:

Which would be a third trimester abortion, and thus would be counted.  Or am I missing something?  That would still be counted somewhere.

A miscarriage doesn't get counted in any stats anywhere as an abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Racists often don't see themselves as racist.  Does that mean they aren't racist?

Sometimes it actually does. Some times ot does not. This is a complicated issue, but at all times there should be a distinction between those with a deliberate purpose and those without one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

A miscarriage doesn't get counted in any stats anywhere as an abortion.

But that wouldn't have been a viable child, if I'm following.  I'm ok with that not counting on the abortion line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Sometimes it actually does. Some times ot does not. This is a complicated issue, but at all times there should be a distinction between those with a deliberate purpose and those without one. 

Having a deliberate purpose but not agreeing on the right word to describe it isn't the same thing as not having a deliberate purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matttyl said:

But that wouldn't have been a viable child, if I'm following.  I'm ok with that not counting on the abortion line. 

If it's a viable child, it'll be counted as a stillbirth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

If it's a viable child, it'll be counted as a stillbirth.

But not as an abortion.  It's still an aborted pregnancy.  I'm just finding it hard to believe that in the last 15 years here in Virginia there hasn't been a single abortion performed in the third trimester.

Are you describing a "requested miscarriage" above, with your doctor doing what he could but there were complications bit?

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Having a deliberate purpose but not agreeing on the right word to describe it isn't the same thing as not having a deliberate purpose.

I don’t believe that the vast majority of those who wish abortion was illegal have any intent to make women slaves. They regard the fetus as a human life and don’t want to see it killed, that’s all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chime in here - I haven't addressed this slavery comparison because it just makes me cringe.  Slavery is one of the worst(or the worst) human rights issues that human beings have ever faced.  Understandably, when people that are not of color or do not come from a lineage where slavery was prevalent use slavery as an example, people immediately jump on them for doing so - similar to comparisons to the Holocaust.  No matter how accurate the comparison is it just doesn't sit well with me.  Henry, I think you'd be best advised to use a different example that isn't so controversial - it detracts from your larger (accurate) point.  Just MO.

Edited by AAABatteries
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Break that down.  What is actually happening during an abortion?

It's removal of access to the prospective mother's circulatory system.  That's it.  If the fetus is viable and active measures are taken to end the life of the fetus for other than medical reasons other than removal of access to the prospective mother's resources and body, I find that patently immoral.  I'm sure we can agree on that.

Which is why I asked, "when" is it ok.  You are very exact on this point, saying, "It's removal of access to the prospective mother's circulatory system.  That's it".  But that's not it.  It means death to the fetus.  When I say, "Pro-lifers simply want to make sure babies are borne.  That's it" you come back with slavery as the direct impact of that decision.  Surely you can see that death is the direct result of this decision, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likely Virginia has had so few third trimester abortions reported is because of the red tape required to get one - while DC and Maryland doesn't have all that red tape.  DC allows third trimester abortions apparently, and there is a facility in Maryland that specifically does them.  Women from VA likely just go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about this the more I think Trump is going to talk about this at the SOTU.  Its a political slam dunk for him; if there were some evangelicals out there waivering or thinking they'd just stay home next election, this will galvanize them like nothing else.  All else being equal, if he addresses this on Tuesday, he's very likely to win in 2020.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I'll chime in here - I haven't addressed this slavery comparison because it just makes me cringe.  Slavery is one of the worst(or the worst) human rights issues that human beings have ever faced.  Understandably, when people that are not of color or do not come from a lineage where slavery was prevalent use slavery as an example, people immediately jump on them for doing so - similar to comparisons to the Holocaust.  No matter how accurate the comparison is it just doesn't sit well with me.  Henry, I think you'd be best advised to use a different example that isn't so controversial - it detracts from your larger (accurate) point.  Just MO.

I occasionally see people in my little libertarian corner of the world try to equate taxation with slavery, on the ground that you're laying claim to the fruits of somebody else's labor.  I agree with you 100% that this is a cringey variant of a reductio ad Hitlerium, and I always roll my eyes when I see this gambit trotted out for battle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, matttyl said:

But not as an abortion.  It's still an aborted pregnancy.  I'm just finding it hard to believe that in the last 15 years here in Virginia there hasn't been a single abortion performed in the third trimester.

Are you describing a "requested miscarriage" above, with your doctor doing what he could but there were complications bit?

Yes. And intentionally misreporting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t believe that the vast majority of those who wish abortion was illegal have any intent to make women slaves. They regard the fetus as a human life and don’t want to see it killed, that’s all. 

 

If I intend to hit you over the head with an anvil, I don't have to actively intend to kill you, I'm still engaging in murder because I intended to do the action that had as a necessary or clearly foreseeable consequence your death and I didn't have a justification sufficient for that action and you're a person. 

 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Which is why I asked, "when" is it ok.  You are very exact on this point, saying, "It's removal of access to the prospective mother's circulatory system.  That's it".  But that's not it.  It means death to the fetus.  When I say, "Pro-lifers simply want to make sure babies are borne.  That's it" you come back with slavery as the direct impact of that decision.  Surely you can see that death is the direct result of this decision, right?

I can absolutely see that.  Which is why I say I can see the point the other side has on this.

However - there's an important distinction between "I am entitled to control over my body" and "I am entitled to control over your body".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Should a visibly pregnant woman who is drinking a glass of wine and smoking a cigarette be arrested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

The more I think about this the more I think Trump is going to talk about this at the SOTU.  Its a political slam dunk for him; if there were some evangelicals out there waivering or thinking they'd just stay home next election, this will galvanize them like nothing else.  All else being equal, if he addresses this on Tuesday, he's very likely to win in 2020.  

What’s more important...getting the evangelicals that are already in board with his hypocrisy...or the amount of women he alienates by pushing this?

I don’t think talking about this in 2019 makes him any more likely to win...I think it hurts him in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I can absolutely see that.  Which is why I say I can see the point the other side has on this.

However - there's an important distinction between "I am entitled to control over my body" and "I am entitled to control over your body".

I agree with you.  Which is why I asked the question.  If you are against controlling a woman's body-which I am in full agreement with-than you must also be against controlling (in this case ending) a baby's body, right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

 

Should a visibly pregnant woman who is drinking a glass of wine and smoking a cigarette be arrested?

no.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

What’s more important...getting the evangelicals that are already in board with his hypocrisy...or the amount of women he alienates by pushing this?

I don’t think talking about this in 2019 makes him any more likely to win...I think it hurts him in the long run.

Women are pro-life at approximately the same rate as men.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

What’s more important...getting the evangelicals that are already in board with his hypocrisy...or the amount of women he alienates by pushing this?

I don’t think talking about this in 2019 makes him any more likely to win...I think it hurts him in the long run.

I think there are a lot of evangelicals that would rather sit the next one out.  But not if this is on the line.  And he will not alienate nearly as many women as you make it sound.  There are plenty of pro-life women in this country.  ETA: Ivan beat me to it.

Edited by unckeyherb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Women are pro-life at approximately the same rate as men.  

Women are 20% more likely to believe abortion should be 100% legal in all circumstances.

Edit: and college graduates are a big gap.  

I don't think the GOP can afford to lose more women with college degrees.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Should a visibly pregnant woman who is drinking a glass of wine and smoking a cigarette be arrested?

If the baby's wellness matters, yes.

If we're just hyperfocused on abortion because it's a hotbutton issue, no.

Our entire political framework would shift if we TRULY treated the unborn child as an unborn child needing all the protections of a vulnerable human citizen.  And all of this unbelievably fierce protectionism wouldn't simply just disappear from (many) pro-life folks the moment the baby has exited the womb.

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

If the baby's wellness matters, yes.

If we're just hyperfocused on abortion because it's a hotbutton issue, no.

Our entire political framework would shift if we TRULY treated the unborn child as an unborn child needing all the protections of a vulnerable human citizen.  And all of this unbelievably fierce protectionism wouldn't simply just disappear from (many) pro-life folks the moment the baby has exited the womb.

Well, it doesn't just require a fetus being treated as needing protection.  It requires needing protection at the expense of the prospective mother's rights.  Which is an astronomical amount of status in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Women are pro-life at approximately the same rate as men.  

A little bit less but yes it’s close.  The point is women will be big in the next election.  I’d also bet women consider this issue more important in voting than men.  So this issue would motivate women to vote at a higher clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Well, it doesn't just require a fetus being treated as needing protection.  It requires needing protection at the expense of the prospective mother's rights.  Which is an astronomical amount of status in my opinion

It puts the rights of the unborn fetus/baby on a level playing field with the rights of the mother, as significant numbers of pro-life folks make exceptions for abortions to save the mother's life.  But only in certain areas, and consciously only until birth at which point the little baby is on its own, government get out of the way!

 

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

I think there are a lot of evangelicals that would rather sit the next one out.  But not if this is on the line.  And he will not alienate nearly as many women as you make it sound.  There are plenty of pro-life women in this country.  ETA: Ivan beat me to it.

Sure and I addressed that in my reply to him.  The issue isn’t just what percentage support, it’s where they view it as impotvs men.

In addition look at the breakdown by party.  Conservative republican is pro life...but once you move to independents?  Even conservative independents skew legal in all/most cases.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

And then there is this from last year...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-may-be-mobilizing-more-democratic-voters-than-republicans-now/amp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

It puts the rights of the unborn fetus/baby on a level playing field with the rights of the mother, as significant numbers of pro-life folks make exceptions for abortions to save the mother's life.  But only in certain areas, and consciously only until birth at which point the little baby is on its own, government get out of the way!

 

No, it doesn't.  It elevates the fetus's rights significantly over the rights of the prospective mother.

Again, in the violinist example I gave - the violinist and the kidnapping victim have the exact same level of rights under the law.  Must the kidnapping victim stay attached to the violinist? Of course not.  With equal rights, body autonomy of one person - free will and free self - is inviolate in that circumstance even up against the right to life of another person when the actions taken are solely to assert free will, even if they will cause the violinist's death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the thread, but if abortion is a topic, then apparently election season has officially started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

No, it doesn't.  It elevates the fetus's rights significantly over the rights of the prospective mother.

Again, in the violinist example I gave - the violinist and the kidnapping victim have the exact same level of rights under the law.  Must the kidnapping victim stay attached to the violinist? Of course not.  With equal rights, body autonomy of one person - free will and free self - is inviolate in that circumstance even up against the right to life of another person when the actions taken are solely to assert free will, even if they will cause the violinist's death.

I somewhat see what you're saying, but from my perspective it's a relatively equal position in terms of rights in that if the baby shouldn't be able to pose an existential risk to the mother, and likewise the mother shouldn't be able to pose an existential risk to the baby in the case of pro-life folks.

It's not equal in terms of the demands, physically, on the mother though.  Perhaps I'm not thinking about "rights" like you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adonis said:

I somewhat see what you're saying, but from my perspective it's a relatively equal position in terms of rights in that if the baby shouldn't be able to pose an existential risk to the mother, and likewise the mother shouldn't be able to pose an existential risk to the baby in the case of pro-life folks.

It's not equal in terms of the demands, physically, on the mother though.  Perhaps I'm not thinking about "rights" like you are.

Again, if you wake up with your circulatory system tied into a famous violinist and he will die if you disconnect yourself but will live if you stay hooked into him for nine months, are you obligated to lay there for nine months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this:

"Give me liberty or give me death"

Do you agree with that sentiment?  Is liberty as important as or more important than mere life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Yes. And intentionally misreporting.

So you're describing medical malpractice, and potentially insurance fraud.  Just want to be sure we're on the same page here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matttyl said:

So you're describing medical malpractice, and potentially insurance fraud.  Just want to be sure we're on the same page here.

From a legal standpoint:

1. Maybe, but probably not, depends on the circumstance; and

2. Probably, but maybe not, depends on the circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Again, if you wake up with your circulatory system tied into a famous violinist and he will die if you disconnect yourself but will live if you stay hooked into him for nine months, are you obligated to lay there for nine months?

In this hypothetical, how did the person with the circulatory system tied into the famous violinist get there in the first place? Were they kidnapped and hooked in against their will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Again, if you wake up with your circulatory system tied into a famous violinist and he will die if you disconnect yourself but will live if you stay hooked into him for nine months, are you obligated to lay there for nine months?

No.

But it's an interesting question.

Would my rights change if I willingly agreed to help the violinist out this way, and then decided against it resulting in his death?  That would be a willing and desired pregnancy, perhaps with a change of mind later or a medical reason to get out of the agreement.

Would my rights change if I were put in this position against my will?  Either a rape or undesired pregnancy situation.

Do my rights change based on how willingly I entered into this situation, regardless of how conscious the violinist is?

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Again, if you wake up with your circulatory system tied into a famous violinist and he will die if you disconnect yourself but will live if you stay hooked into him for nine months, are you obligated to lay there for nine months?

If we take rape out of the equation, (likely an extremely small number of the overall abortions), your analogy fails becused no one just “wakes up” to a baby.  They knowingly engage in activities that cause pregnancy.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pepwaves said:

In this hypothetical, how did the person with the circulatory system tied into the famous violinist get there in the first place? Were they kidnapped and hooked in against their will?

I posted it earlier that they were kidnapped.  If it makes a difference, give multiple answers. If they got drunk and woke up that way and can't remember, or if they got drunk and said "I'll lay down next to him as long as you promise you won't take the caps off of the needles to those tubes", or if they were kidnapped, or if they said "as long as you promise to take precautions so that I won't have to be tied in for nine months."  Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shader said:

 

If we take rape out of the equation, (likely an extremely small number of the overall abortions), your analogy fails becused no one just “wakes up” to a baby.  They knowingly engage in activities that cause pregnancy.  

That can cause pregnancy.  That's not the same thing as will cause pregnancy.  Also, the number of times men say they'll use a condom and don't or birth control fails, or lots of other things happen are relevant.  

Also, rape and incest are responsible for more abortions than late-term abortions are.  So can we take those out of the equation when discussing abortion?  It's so small a number they don't matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, adonis said:

No.

But it's an interesting question.

Would my rights change if I willingly agreed to help the violinist out this way, and then decided against it resulting in his death?  That would be a willing and desired pregnancy, perhaps with a change of mind later or a medical reason to get out of the agreement.

Would my rights change if I were put in this position against my will?  Either a rape or undesired pregnancy situation.

Do my rights change based on how willingly I entered into this situation, regardless of how conscious the violinist is?

That is kind of what I was wondering. In Henry's example, the "kidnapping victim" is in cahoots with the kidnapper, isn't she? I mean, with the obvious exception of women who are forced, every woman who willingly engages in sex knows (or damn well should) that pregnancy is a possible outcome. I get the point of what he's saying but I guess I struggle with her being labeled a victim taken against her will. To me, that absolves her of her accountability.

Edited by whiskey7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.