Late term abortions (7 Viewers)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

One lesson here is that The Washington Examiner might be a crappy news source.

 

[Bayhawks]

Yes.  And if you can imagine the distaste that you likely feel when you hear of a serial killer killing and dismembering his victims, you might be able to empathize with the distaste that I feel for those that have abortions.

But the point is that you were unable to stay rational b/c the other poster said “abortion, always, period.”  You’re saying “abortion, never, period.”  Neither point of view is rational.  There are absolutely times when an abortion is justified, and there absolutely times when it’s unjustifiable.  To say always OK/never OK are equally irrational positions.

 

[Henry Ford]

One lesson here is that The Washington Examiner might be a crappy news source.

Yeah, that would be a shocker.

To be fair, though, all newspapers are terrible at reporting on science and the law.  And this is about both.

 

[jamny]

There should be medical exceptions in extreme cases.  The biggest problem is how to medically constrain it so it is really a life-threatening situation and not just some abortion doctor who will rubber stamp it as such.  

That's why I found the ability to abort due to the mental health of the mother to be very disturbing. That is quite a large grey area.

 

[timschochet]

One lesson here is that The Washington Examiner might be a crappy news source.

Different issue but yeah. And it’s a continual aspect of almost all political discussions/debates we have in this forum- conservatives cite conservative news sources and their info turns out to be false or misleading more often than not. It happens over and over and over. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

Hyperlink in Jon's article goes here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013

 

[Henry Ford]

Hyperlink in Jon's article goes here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013

Yeah, that's the study we've been discussing.  Which excludes abortions for medical reasons.

 

[dgreen]

It seems to me that once you concede that there has to be exceptions for medical emergencies (as jon just did) you can’t leave that up to a judge to decide. Not enough time, not enough expertise. The only reasonable thing you can do is have late term abortions be legal. Henry Ford is right about this. 

If my logic is in error here, some one can show me. But I don’t see how this conclusion can be wrong. 

Not sure I agree with the "Well, if a judge can't do it, then we must allow all abortions" argument. There aren't any other options? Someone other than a judge who can decide much quicker and does have the expertise? There are about 20 late term abortions per day. How many licensed/certified experts do you think you'd need available for them to make the quick, expert ruling that the situation in 20 cases meets the legal criteria (I'm assuming here we can clearly define the criteria)?

 

[Bayhawks]

I’m not going to talk about one of your relatives, especially without knowing her situation.  I won’t label someone a murderer if society doesn’t view it as murder.  Our attitudes can be shaped by what society views as right and wrong. My opinion that abortion is murder is my opinion.  But I am not going to call people murderers because I try not to be judgmental. (If I’ve done so at some point in this or any other conversation I apologize)

Usually in these discussions the most extreme and gut-wrenching cases are thrown out.  While those are awful, there are also hundreds of thousands of abortions that occur because a parent doesn’t want a baby.  That’s the big issue imo.

But you’re not doing that; you’re only throwing out the most extreme and gut-wrenching cases that hurt YOUR position (i.e.-those women who have an abortion b/c their lives are in danger, or whose unborn child’s won’t survive, or will live a life of pain).  You’re not “throwing out” those few women who would choose to have a late-term abortion b/c having the child would be hard for them.  The vast majority of women who choose to have an abortion do it early, AND they aren’t doing so b/c their lives are in danger.  You want to use the fact that it’s a small percentage of women who HAVE to have abortions for safety/health reasons to justify “ignoring” them, but you (or, at least, most pro-life arguments) want to emphasize those women who choose late-term abortions, even though they make a relatively small percentage of the cases, as well.  

 

[Henry Ford]

Not sure I agree with the "Well, if a judge can't do it, then we must allow all abortions" argument. There aren't any other options? Someone other than a judge who can decide much quicker and does have the expertise? There are about 20 late term abortions per day. How many licensed/certified experts do you think you'd need available for them to make the quick, expert ruling that the situation in 20 cases meets the legal criteria (I'm assuming here we can clearly define the criteria)?

You mean like a doctor?  Who has an ethical obligation to "do no harm"?

 

[Henry Ford]

Not sure I agree with the "Well, if a judge can't do it, then we must allow all abortions" argument. There aren't any other options? Someone other than a judge who can decide much quicker and does have the expertise? There are about 20 late term abortions per day. How many licensed/certified experts do you think you'd need available for them to make the quick, expert ruling that the situation in 20 cases meets the legal criteria (I'm assuming here we can clearly define the criteria)?

The short answer is, it isn't possible.  Some of these decisions have to be made faster than you could wake up a patient and ask her what she wants.   Some of them involve walking out into a waiting area with blood on your hands and clothes and telling a man waiting with a group of strangers in an emergency room that it is your medical opinion that the pregnancy that he's been experiencing with his wife for six months should be terminated immediately to save his wife's life and he has less than five minutes to decide or it won't make any difference at all.

 

[dgreen]

The short answer is, it isn't possible.  Some of these decisions have to be made faster than you could wake up a patient and ask her what she wants.   Some of them involve walking out into a waiting area with blood on your hands and clothes and telling a man waiting with a group of strangers in an emergency room that it is your medical opinion that the pregnancy that he's been experiencing with his wife for six months should be terminated immediately to save his wife's life and he has less than five minutes to decide or it won't make any difference at all.

I'm not following. In this scenario, it sounds like you've found your licensed/certified expert to make such a determination (again, assuming we can clearly define the criteria). And he's right there involved with the case. Don't doctors make similar judgements all the time in areas other than abortion?

As for defining the criteria, I guess I don't see why lesser justifications (whatever they are) have to be legal just to allow the scenario you're describing. I understand that's the easier route. I'm even willing to accept, with enough study of this topic, that it's the preferred route. The argument just leaves me with a "I feel we can do better" mindset.

 

[matttyl]

It states that only 1.2% of abortions take place after 21 weeks. The percentage of abortions within the last trimester are likely to be much smaller.

How does that math work?  If it's 1.2% after 21 weeks, why would it be much smaller for those between weeks 27 and ~38?

Also, 1.2% would still be ~8k a year. 

 

[jon_mx]

Different issue but yeah. And it’s a continual aspect of almost all political discussions/debates we have in this forum- conservatives cite conservative news sources and their info turns out to be false or misleading more often than not. It happens over and over and over. 

Your source was worse, so this is an odd time to be on your high horse.  Unfortunately those are the relatively few sources even attempting to address the issue.  

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not following. In this scenario, it sounds like you've found your licensed/certified expert to make such a determination (again, assuming we can clearly define the criteria). And he's right there involved with the case. Don't doctors make similar judgements all the time in areas other than abortion?

As for defining the criteria, I guess I don't see why lesser justifications (whatever they are) have to be legal just to allow the scenario you're describing. I understand that's the easier route. I'm even willing to accept, with enough study of this topic, that it's the preferred route. The argument just leaves me with a "I feel we can do better" mindset.

Well, yeah.  A doctor is already involved in this decision every single time. So it's solved in your opinion? Hooray!

 

[KCitons]

I used to be very Pro-Life. Especially during the time when my kids were born. I had a friend who got a girl pregnant and they decided to have an abortion. I was pissed and told him how I felt. If you're responsible enough to have sex, then you need to be responsible enough to have a kid. 

Today I understand that there are medical reasons that may require an abortion. I don't believe their are any social or economic reasons that would be considered a good reason. Again, if you want to have sex, understand the responsibility to goes along with it. The only abortions I am okay with (including late term) are those that are heavily regulated, and done for medical reasons. In the instances of rape or incest, I would expect each abortion to include a police report and possible prosecution of the father. Abortion as birth control is never an acceptable answer. 

 

[Henry Ford]

How does that math work?  If it's 1.2% after 21 weeks, why would it be much smaller for those between weeks 27 and ~38?

Also, 1.2% would still be ~8k a year. 

Because it's a bell curve and you're subtracting the earliest six weeks of the 21-38 week window.

Edit: also, 8,000 people per year get bitten by poisonous snakes in this country, and I have a hard time basing my voting decisions on snake bites.  Just saying, this is a massive vote swaying scam by the Republicans.

 

[dgreen]

Well, yeah.  A doctor is already involved in this decision every single time. So it's solved in your opinion? Hooray!

What's solved? This discussion originated with the idea that our choices are "a judge has to decide whether an abortion can take place or else we have to allow them all." I didn't really agree with that argument. I think there might be other options...like doctors. If you're suggesting that I think it's solved that the judge argument is a bad argument, then yes I'd say that's solved. If you're referring to something else, then I'm lost.

 

[Henry Ford]

What's solved? This discussion originated with the idea that our choices are "a judge has to decide whether an abortion can take place or else we have to allow them all." I didn't really agree with that argument. I think there might be other options...like doctors. If you're suggesting that I think it's solved that the judge argument is a bad argument, then yes I'd say that's solved. If you're referring to something else, then I'm lost.

Doctors already decide whether an abortion can take place.

But they can because it's not a legal determination.  If you need a legal determination, you can't have doctors do it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Your source was worse, so this is an odd time to be on your high horse.  Unfortunately those are the relatively few sources even attempting to address the issue.  

Your source's entire argument was based on a misrepresentation of what a study had said.  Hard to get much worse than that.

 

[Henry Ford]

for some reasons his posts stopped

He just posted in here ten minutes ago.  I'm sure he has things to do.

 

[unckeyherb]

Of course you realize Trump holds no personal views or beliefs on abortion himself, right? He doesn't believe in the libertarian/liberal argument that a person has control over his own medical decisions, and he doesn't believe that a fetus is a living child. Trump's a moral, philosophical vacuum. All he sees is political opportunity.

Which raises my question - why is this a thing right now? Didn't NY state just pass a new law allowing late term abortions? Is that what's going on here? New York?

Of course I realize that.  What does that matter?  It doesn't change the fact that this is an obvious landmine for Democrats that Trump, knowing how to stir the pot, for lack of a better term, will have no issue painting dems as wanting to kill babies.  It's actually not far from pro-lifers that simply want to protect unwanted babies from death, being characterized as hating/wanting to control women.  Not the same thing.  Regardless, I'll eat my hat if he doesn't address this in a really obvious way during the SOTU.  

 

[dgreen]

Doctors already decide whether an abortion can take place.

But they can because it's not a legal determination.  If you need a legal determination, you can't have doctors do it.

Thanks. That goes back to a question I asked earlier. So there aren't other areas that doctors determine what to do based on a law dictating what they can and can't do? Are all areas of medical actions and all-or-nothing approach, legally? This sounds familiar to the euthanasia debates.

 

[timschochet]

I used to be very Pro-Life. Especially during the time when my kids were born. I had a friend who got a girl pregnant and they decided to have an abortion. I was pissed and told him how I felt. If you're responsible enough to have sex, then you need to be responsible enough to have a kid. 

Today I understand that there are medical reasons that may require an abortion. I don't believe their are any social or economic reasons that would be considered a good reason. Again, if you want to have sex, understand the responsibility to goes along with it. The only abortions I am okay with (including late term) are those that are heavily regulated, and done for medical reasons. In the instances of rape or incest, I would expect each abortion to include a police report and possible prosecution of the father. Abortion as birth control is never an acceptable answer. 

I’m going to have to start referring to you as Javert. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Of course I realize that.  What does that matter?  It doesn't change the fact that this is an obvious landmine for Democrats that Trump, knowing how to stir the pot, for lack of a better term, will have no issue painting dems as wanting to kill babies.  It's actually not far from pro-lifers that simply want to protect unwanted babies from death, being characterized as hating/wanting to control women.  Not the same thing.  Regardless, I'll eat my hat if he doesn't address this in a really obvious way during the SOTU.  

I'd imagine he doesn't.

Care to lay bets on whether Donald Trump has ever paid for an abortion? And whether, if he had, the woman involved would come forward if he addresses it obviously during the SOTU?

 

[unckeyherb]

Being pro choice doesn’t necessarily mean you are not against abortion or that you support abortion up until birth.  In addition it leaves out that there are reasons to do so (viability of the child and health of the mother).

As with most things it’s not a black and white issue...and pushing it as one is not a fully truthful argument out of Trump.

agreed.  Saying that pro-lifers want to "control women's bodies" isn't a truthful argument either, but here we are.  

 

[Henry Ford]

Thanks. That goes back to a question I asked earlier. So there aren't other areas that doctors determine what to do based on a law dictating what they can and can't do? Are all areas of medical actions and all-or-nothing approach, legally? This sounds familiar to the euthanasia debates.

It does sound familiar.  But it's also got an "exigent circumstance" quality that euthanasia and assisted suicide don't usually have. Which just makes it less possible to address reasonably and with a cool head on a case by case basis.

 

[Juxtatarot]

 If you're responsible enough to have sex, then you need to be responsible enough to have a kid. 

Again, if you want to have sex, understand the responsibility to goes along with it. 

This is good in theory but this system breaks down for irresponsible people. 

 

[Henry Ford]

agreed.  Saying that pro-lifers want to "control women's bodies" isn't a truthful argument either, but here we are.  

Is this solely because if it were possible to gestate the fetus outside of the body pro lifers would be okay with that, or is there another reason?

 

[NREC34]

I used to be very Pro-Life. Especially during the time when my kids were born. I had a friend who got a girl pregnant and they decided to have an abortion. I was pissed and told him how I felt. If you're responsible enough to have sex, then you need to be responsible enough to have a kid. 

Today I understand that there are medical reasons that may require an abortion. I don't believe their are any social or economic reasons that would be considered a good reason. Again, if you want to have sex, understand the responsibility to goes along with it. The only abortions I am okay with (including late term) are those that are heavily regulated, and done for medical reasons. In the instances of rape or incest, I would expect each abortion to include a police report and possible prosecution of the father. Abortion as birth control is never an acceptable answer. 

I used to have pretty much the same opinion but I’ve evolved to feeling that if it’s “for birth control” it’s not a huge deal if it’s early in the pregnancy. 

What if the guy did what he was supposed to in that he provided birth control pills to his wife but she forgets to take them sometimes? He ought to be legally stuck for 18 years for a kid he might not be able to afford?

I think if we have it the way you propose there should be a program the government runs which makes sure everything about the unwanted pregnancy gets paid for and the baby automatically gets adopted. That or a doctor can suck a few cells out in a easy procedure. 

 

[matttyl]

Because it's a bell curve and you're subtracting the earliest six weeks of the 21-38 week window.

Edit: also, 8,000 people per year get bitten by poisonous snakes in this country, and I have a hard time basing my voting decisions on snake bites.  Just saying, this is a massive vote swaying scam by the Republicans.

So now you're comparing late term abortions to snake bites?  Also, only 5-6 Americans die from snake bites each year - so I'm not sure why you would base anything on that.  Basing a voting decision on something occurs over 1k more often makes a bit more sense, no?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Of course I realize that.  What does that matter?  It doesn't change the fact that this is an obvious landmine for Democrats that Trump, knowing how to stir the pot, for lack of a better term, will have no issue painting dems as wanting to kill babies.  It's actually not far from pro-lifers that simply want to protect unwanted babies from death, being characterized as hating/wanting to control women.  Not the same thing.  Regardless, I'll eat my hat if he doesn't address this in a really obvious way during the SOTU.  

We're largely in agreement, it's a cynical political ploy coming from someone (Trump) who really doesn't personally care about the issue. If people want to be manipulated, so be it (and after all that's how Trump came to the WH), off to the races.

 

[Henry Ford]

So now you're comparing late term abortions to snake bites?  Also, only 5-6 Americans die from snake bites each year - so I'm not sure why you would base anything on that.  Basing a voting decision on something occurs over 1k more often makes a bit more sense, no?

I'm not sure you want to get into a semantic argument on this comparison, but I will if you'll just confirm that's what you'd like to do.

 

[KCitons]

This is good in theory but this system breaks down for irresponsible people. 

I think most people know how babies are made by the time they are 13. To engage in sexual activity, while ignoring the possible outcomes, is selfish and responsible. 

If you haven't noticed, I'm all about holding people accountable when their actions could have been prevented it. 

 

[KCitons]

I used to have pretty much the same opinion but I’ve evolved to feeling that if it’s “for birth control” it’s not a huge deal if it’s early in the pregnancy. 

What if the guy did what he was supposed to in that he provided birth control pills to his wife but she forgets to take them sometimes? He ought to be legally stuck for 18 years for a kid he might not be able to afford?

I think if we have it the way you propose there should be a program the government runs which makes sure everything about the unwanted pregnancy gets paid for and the baby automatically gets adopted. That or a doctor can suck a few cells out in a easy procedure. 

But it is. 

If the guy bought the pills, and the wife forgets to take them, isn't it still the fault of both to make sure they did everything necessary to prevent a pregnancy? 

 

[KCitons]

I’m going to have to start referring to you as Javert. 

Why is that? Because I don't abide by political affiliation to determine my opinions?

 

[unckeyherb]

I'd imagine he doesn't.

Care to lay bets on whether Donald Trump has ever paid for an abortion? And whether, if he had, the woman involved would come forward if he addresses it obviously during the SOTU?

Dumb bet for many obvious reasons, but again, I don't see it as relevant.  

Regarding the second point, I suppose that is entirely possible.  I also suppose he doesn't really care.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But it is. 

If the guy bought the pills, and the wife forgets to take them, isn't it still the fault of both to make sure they did everything necessary to prevent a pregnancy? 

Why is "preventing a pregnancy" the thing that we're judging them on?  Why not "preventing a baby"?  People that get abortions are super responsible about that one.

 

[Henry Ford]

Dumb bet for many obvious reasons, but again, I don't see it as relevant.  

Regarding the second point, I suppose that is entirely possible.  I also suppose he doesn't really care.  

I think he does.  Guess we'll see.  

 

[unckeyherb]

Is this solely because if it were possible to gestate the fetus outside of the body pro lifers would be okay with that, or is there another reason?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you asking if pro-lifers could snap their fingers and unwanted babies could be brought to term and live rather than be aborted, would they take that and rejoice?  Yes, I'd say so.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why is "preventing a pregnancy" the thing that we're judging them on?  Why not "preventing a baby"?  People that get abortions are super responsible about that one.

I think people (mostly men) who have never experienced pregnancy think of it as a beautiful, life affirming experience with solely positive connotations and not a gateway to destroying a woman's body from the inside out.  And hemorrhoids.  

 

[unckeyherb]

We're largely in agreement, it's a cynical political ploy coming from someone (Trump) who really doesn't personally care about the issue. If people want to be manipulated, so be it (and after all that's how Trump came to the WH), off to the races.

Yeah, I concur.

 

[sho nuff]

Dumb bet for many obvious reasons, but again, I don't see it as relevant.  

Regarding the second point, I suppose that is entirely possible.  I also suppose he doesn't really care.  

I think it will be very relevant if he tries pushing this dems are for abortion stuff when he would be a gigantic hypocrite.

I realize he doesn’t care and neither does his base...but others trying to say i will instead vote for Trump would be hard to really justify that.

In the end Roe isn’t going to change any time soon.  I think this issue is much more of a state by state issue than a federal one because of that.

 

[Henry Ford]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you asking if pro-lifers could snap their fingers and unwanted babies could be brought to term and live rather than be aborted, would they take that and rejoice?  Yes, I'd say so.

No, I'm asking in what way pro-lifers don't want to control a woman's body?  Is it solely "well, regulating your body is an incidental consequence that exists solely because we don't have gestation tubes that would do the same thing"?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In the end Roe isn’t going to change any time soon.  I think this issue is much more of a state by state issue than a federal one because of that.

Wat

 

[unckeyherb]

I think people (mostly men) who have never experienced pregnancy think of it as a beautiful, life affirming experience with solely positive connotations and not a gateway to destroying a woman's body from the inside out.  And hemorrhoids.  

And then there is every one of us that are married with children.

 

[sho nuff]

Wat

Do you think Roe will be reversed any time soon?

Abortion is going to be fought in state legislatures and courts rather than by US Congress. (As we see in NY and VA).  

 

[Juxtatarot]

I think most people know how babies are made by the time they are 13. To engage in sexual activity, while ignoring the possible outcomes, is selfish and responsible. 

If you haven't noticed, I'm all about holding people accountable when their actions could have been prevented it. 

Forcing a woman to carry to term is holding her (and him) accountable?

 

[unckeyherb]

I think it will be very relevant if he tries pushing this dems are for abortion stuff when he would be a gigantic hypocrite.

I realize he doesn’t care and neither does his base...but others trying to say i will instead vote for Trump would be hard to really justify that.

In the end Roe isn’t going to change any time soon.  I think this issue is much more of a state by state issue than a federal one because of that.

Its not about his base IMO.  His base is already at 11 on this issue.  Its about a lot of people that are probably on the fence but lean toward pro-choice.  Aligning the dems squarely with something as visceral as late term abortions (regardless of their personal views, no democrat is formally NOT pro-choice.  I realize this is conflating two things, but that is going to happen in this discussion) is going to make a lot of people hold their noses and vote for the guy that claims to be against that.  

Or it won't.  That is the calculation I think he or his advisors are making though.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do you think Roe will be reversed any time soon?

Abortion is going to be fought in state legislatures and courts rather than by US Congress. (As we see in NY and VA).  

I don't know whether Roe will be reversed soon.

If it does get reversed, then it becomes an entirely state by state issue.  Your conclusion is the opposite of what it should be.