(05-17-2019 03:49 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.

How does this law make *any* and *all* third trimester abortions OK?

There is zero penalty for violating the proscription within 2599. That is why.

Also the legislature at the same time eliminated any penalty outside of 2599.

No one can be held criminally liable for aborting any fetus, even after the 24th week of pregnancy.

There is *no*liability in any way, shape, or form for aborting any fetus, even after the 24th week of pregnancy. No civil liability, no professional liability, no criminal liability.

Imagine that. A state law that 'prohibits' something, and yet does not have a single fing penalty for it. Who would have ever thunk.

And no, the 'no penalty whatsoever' is *not* an oversight.

Quote: Are you saying that because "mental health" could be seen as a justification for a 3rd trimester abortion?

That is huge loophole, as well. A loophole historically used in the 50's, 60's, and 70's around state laws that outlawed abortion excepting the 'mother's health.'

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.

What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Why not invoke what is in 2599, and maintain some-fing-where within the body of law that if you abort a viable fetus, that there is some-fing-level of liability?

Apparently that is *so* far off he table that one has to justify it as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost. Which, if I read your response above, you are saying just that.

That is as grotesque as the adamant right-to-lifers stance of 'Too bad, you had a nice bounce in the hay, you knew the potential cost -- so carry it to term b-tch.'

I guess if you can balance Gosnell as being okay I can see why one cannot fathom even imposing an iota of liability. Anywhere.

I personally cant balance the actions of Gosnell as being *anywhere* close to fing acceptable.

edited to add: elsewhere on this bulletin board I am having a discussion with people who think that the Alabama law is perfectly acceptable, and debate the morality of having a rape and incest exception in there. I have called their position horrific. Much as I have noted here I have found the Alabama bill horrific.

I am just as singularly appalled that someone could actually defend an abortion law that provides zero penalty for late term, or very late term viable abortions. Yet in the post that this responds to you actually do defend that position from my reading.

Interesting contrast between the liberal position on gun control and the liberal position on late term abortion.

On guns, what we often hear is that if it saves one life, it is worth it. But what we hear on late term abortion is, it is so infrequent that we can ignore it. Apparently the threshold there for importance is >1.

Also, I am a bit concerned with the idea that good people will do the right thing even without the threat of legal punishment. Nowhere else in our laws do i find this. Kind of like assuming everybody will pay their taxes even if there is no punishment for not doing so.

I certainly think that, whatever threshold for abortions is used, the life of the mother should be an exception.

I think this clip from earlier today sums up the position perfectly:





McCain asks Klobuchar flat out if she is for late term abortions. Klobuchar simply rehashes that she is for a woman's right to make a choice, then the progressive co-host launches in with 'its so rare as to be a non-issue.'

Per the CDC late term is 1.3% of abortions.

There are about 800,000 abortions a year, so back of the hanky yields 10k or so late term abortions I dont think nominally that late term abortions are all that rare.

Do you all think *every* single one of those 10k is for medical reasons and non-viability? I guess since those of us who dont see a problem with *some* sort of liability for a viable late term procedure (as opposed to the 'no-fault' model brought up by the NY model). How many does this break down for the 'hundreds and hundreds' of skulking evil abortionists that is brought up fairly flippantly?

(05-17-2019 05:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16103922' dateline='1558122265']

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.

What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Why not invoke what is in 2599, and maintain some-fing-where within the body of law that if you abort a viable fetus, that there is some-fing-level of liability?

Apparently that is *so* far off he table that one has to justify it as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost. Which, if I read your response above, you are saying just that.

That is as grotesque as the adamant right-to-lifers stance of 'Too bad, you had a nice bounce in the hay, you knew the potential cost -- so carry it to term b-tch.'

I guess if you can balance Gosnell as being okay I can see why one cannot fathom even imposing an iota of liability. Anywhere.

[\quote]

Come on. Really?

Quote:I personally cant balance the actions of Gosnell as being *anywhere* close to fing acceptable.

[\quote]

Good for you. Neither can I.

[quote]

edited to add: elsewhere on this bulletin board I am having a discussion with people who think that the Alabama law is perfectly acceptable, and debate the morality of having a rape and incest exception in there. I have called their position horrific. Much as I have noted here I have found the Alabama bill horrific.

I am just as singularly appalled that someone could actually defend an abortion law that provides zero penalty for late term, or very late term viable abortions. Yet in the post that this responds to you actually do defend that position from my reading.

The lifting of criminal penalties seems to be an effort to address the problem that so few doctors are willing to undertake a 3rd term abortion even under extreme circumstances because they are frightened of ending up in jail. So there are instances when a pregnant woman needs a late-term abortion for serious health issues or for a non-viable fetus and she isn't able to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

(05-17-2019 05:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16103922' dateline='1558122265']

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.

What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Why not invoke what is in 2599, and maintain some-fing-where within the body of law that if you abort a viable fetus, that there is some-fing-level of liability?

Apparently that is *so* far off he table that one has to justify it as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost. Which, if I read your response above, you are saying just that.

That is as grotesque as the adamant right-to-lifers stance of 'Too bad, you had a nice bounce in the hay, you knew the potential cost -- so carry it to term b-tch.'

I guess if you can balance Gosnell as being okay I can see why one cannot fathom even imposing an iota of liability. Anywhere.

[\quote]

Come on. Really?

Quote:I personally cant balance the actions of Gosnell as being *anywhere* close to fing acceptable.

[\quote]

Good for you. Neither can I.

[quote]

edited to add: elsewhere on this bulletin board I am having a discussion with people who think that the Alabama law is perfectly acceptable, and debate the morality of having a rape and incest exception in there. I have called their position horrific. Much as I have noted here I have found the Alabama bill horrific.

I am just as singularly appalled that someone could actually defend an abortion law that provides zero penalty for late term, or very late term viable abortions. Yet in the post that this responds to you actually do defend that position from my reading.

The lifting of criminal penalties seems to be an effort to address the problem that so few doctors are willing to undertake a 3rd term abortion even under extreme circumstances because they are frightened of ending up in jail. So there are instances when a pregnant woman needs a late-term abortion for serious health issues or for a non-viable fetus and she isn't able to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

(05-17-2019 10:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 05:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Why not invoke what is in 2599, and maintain some-fing-where within the body of law that if you abort a viable fetus, that there is some-fing-level of liability?

Apparently that is *so* far off he table that one has to justify it as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost. Which, if I read your response above, you are saying just that.

That is as grotesque as the adamant right-to-lifers stance of 'Too bad, you had a nice bounce in the hay, you knew the potential cost -- so carry it to term b-tch.'

I guess if you can balance Gosnell as being okay I can see why one cannot fathom even imposing an iota of liability. Anywhere.

Come on. Really?

Certainly when you come down on the side of providing a law that has zero liability under any and all circumstances you *just* stated that the abortion of a viable fetus as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost.

So, yes. Really. I find that extremism *just* as grotesque as the equal but opposite stance of 'TFB, carry to term, b-tch'.

Quote:

Quote:I personally cant balance the actions of Gosnell as being *anywhere* close to fing acceptable.

Good for you. Neither can I.

You actually just did.

read your own words:

Quote:What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

In the above you just balanced a justification of accepting a Gosnell result against your dream scenario of providing unrestricted abortions. And you came down on the side of your dream scenario of no abortion has *any* penalty whatsoever.

Quote:The lifting of criminal penalties seems to be an effort to address the problem that so few doctors are willing to undertake a 3rd term abortion even under extreme circumstances because they are frightened of ending up in jail. So there are instances when a pregnant woman needs a late-term abortion for serious health issues or for a non-viable fetus and she isn't able to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

The lifting of not just 'criminal' penalties, but *all* fing liabilities, mind you, no matter what effort it seemingly addresses, sweeps the abortion of a viable fetus (even at 8.9999 months) into the Too Fing Bad pile. Notwithstanding all your justification above.

As for non-viable late term -- those are pretty fing obvious. My wife underwent one if truth be told. I seriously doubt that there is much 'frightening' and hiding in corners on that, having been down that path personally.

Non-viability is a pretty fing obvious condition that can be documented pretty ******* easily no matter what you imply and state above.

And again, a womens 'serious' health issue is a pretty fing obvious conclusion as well. And again I have been close (very close) to that as well. When a women's respiratory system, or immune system, or other vital function is anything close to 'a little out of normal' based on pregnancy, it is pretty obvious. When those abnormalities rise to a 'serious health issue', it is even far more obvious. Those situations are pretty easy to document.

Look, I have no issue with non-viable and women's physical health late term abortions. You say you have an issue with Gosnell situations, but interestingly think that those are copacetic with the 'zero liability -- ever' New York regime. That last stance doesnt even pass the basic 'makes any sense' test.

Gosnell bad bad bad bad. But...... how about no legal liability ever for those types of actions. Something doesnt compute there.....

(05-17-2019 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 10:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 05:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Why not invoke what is in 2599, and maintain some-fing-where within the body of law that if you abort a viable fetus, that there is some-fing-level of liability?

Apparently that is *so* far off he table that one has to justify it as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost. Which, if I read your response above, you are saying just that.

That is as grotesque as the adamant right-to-lifers stance of 'Too bad, you had a nice bounce in the hay, you knew the potential cost -- so carry it to term b-tch.'

I guess if you can balance Gosnell as being okay I can see why one cannot fathom even imposing an iota of liability. Anywhere.

Come on. Really?

Certainly when you come down on the side of providing a law that has zero liability under any and all circumstances you *just* stated that the abortion of a viable fetus as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost.

So, yes. Really. I find that extremism *just* as grotesque as the equal but opposite stance of 'TFB, carry to term, b-tch'.

Quote:

Quote:I personally cant balance the actions of Gosnell as being *anywhere* close to fing acceptable.

Good for you. Neither can I.

You actually just did.

read your own words:

Quote:What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

In the above you just balanced a justification of accepting a Gosnell result against your dream scenario of providing unrestricted abortions. And you came down on the side of your dream scenario of no abortion has *any* penalty whatsoever.

"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities. Given your answer, I asked myself why they put that part of the bill in place. After doing some reading on the matter, it seemed that it was the difficulty getting doctors to participate in needed 3rd trimester abortions given the threat of criminal liability.

Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).

Quote:

Quote:The lifting of criminal penalties seems to be an effort to address the problem that so few doctors are willing to undertake a 3rd term abortion even under extreme circumstances because they are frightened of ending up in jail. So there are instances when a pregnant woman needs a late-term abortion for serious health issues or for a non-viable fetus and she isn't able to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

The lifting of not just 'criminal' penalties, but *all* fing liabilities, mind you, no matter what effort it seemingly addresses, sweeps the abortion of a viable fetus (even at 8.9999 months) into the Too Fing Bad pile. Notwithstanding all your justification above.

As for non-viable late term -- those are pretty fing obvious. My wife underwent one if truth be told. I seriously doubt that there is much 'frightening' and hiding in corners on that, having been down that path personally.

Non-viability is a pretty fing obvious condition that can be documented pretty ******* easily no matter what you imply and state above.

And again, a womens 'serious' health issue is a pretty fing obvious conclusion as well. And again I have been close (very close) to that as well. When a women's respiratory system, or immune system, or other vital function is anything close to 'a little out of normal' based on pregnancy, it is pretty obvious. When those abnormalities rise to a 'serious health issue', it is even far more obvious. Those situations are pretty easy to document.

Really? Pretty easy to diagnose? Obvious?

How about the times when a completely normal 3rd term pregnancy has a sudden complication? And it's a serious threat to the woman's health and the situation goes from 0 to 100 within a short time? And an abortion is needed however there are almost no doctors around that are willing to participate in a 3rd term abortion under any circumstances due to threat of criminal liability?

Quote:Look, I have no issue with non-viable and women's physical health late term abortions. You say you have an issue with Gosnell situations, but interestingly think that those are copacetic with the 'zero liability -- ever' New York regime. That last stance doesnt even pass the basic 'makes any sense' test.

Gosnell bad bad bad bad. But...... how about no legal liability ever for those types of actions. Something doesnt compute there.....

The issue of abortion is so hard. I think most of us struggle with it. It's hard to say when life begin and I certainly understand those that feel that abortion at any point during the pregnancy is murder. I wish there was no need for abortions.

I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.

To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists. It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.

*edit* I'm sorry you and your wife went through that.

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?
Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.
Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.
I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

I think 2 is far more likely. And 1 can be fixed with the simple solutions that Tanq has suggested herein. But this law goes far beyond those. And the only logical reason for no liability ever is to set up option 2.

And I guess the other question I have is what is the difference between aborting and giving birth to a non-viable fetus? Either way, you get a dead baby. Whereas the difference between aborting and giving birth to a healthy, viable baby is pretty signifiant. I recognize that the issues facing, say, a young unwed pregnant girl can be pretty daunting. It seems to me that one solution to her dilemma is to make adoption a more viable and less difficult option. We have this huge ethical opprobrium again having babies for sale. But a young expectant mother with the options of having an abortion or having the child on behalf of a childless couple willing to pay her is one that I think would be resolved in favor of carrying to term more often than not, and I really don't see the great ethical dilemma there. It's certainly better than abortion.

(05-18-2019 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?
Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.
Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.
I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

I think 2 is far more likely. And 1 can be fixed with the simple solutions that Tanq has suggested herein. But this law goes far beyond those. And the only logical reason for no liability ever is to set up option 2.

And I guess the other question I have is what is the difference between aborting and giving birth to a non-viable fetus? Either way, you get a dead baby. Whereas the difference between aborting and giving birth to a healthy, viable baby is pretty signifiant. I recognize that the issues facing, say, a young unwed pregnant girl can be pretty daunting. It seems to me that one solution to her dilemma is to make adoption a more viable and less difficult option. We have this huge ethical opprobrium again having babies for sale. But a young expectant mother with the options of having an abortion or having the child on behalf of a childless couple willing to pay her is one that I think would be resolved in favor of carrying to term more often than not, and I really don't see the great ethical dilemma there. It's certainly better than abortion.

In reality that is not the case. In the most adoption set-up these days, there are typically significant amounts of transfers between the parties. And not all are 'pregnancy health related' costs. Further, the negotiations for those transfers very much resemble a large-scale business negotiation and can be very complex. And often require negotiating with multiples of other of offers in the mix.

After our travails (including multiple rounds of in vitro) we got very familiar with this path. And the economic expectations are not insignificant. In reality there really is no difference between 'cash on the barrelhead for a good in sale' and most of the adoption 'arrangements' out there -- the main significant difference is that in the adoption setting there is no 'breach of contract' if the goods never show up.

So, when I hear that we as a society have this overriding shudder about 'babies for sale', in practice a very good amount of the adoption process is just that.

(05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 10:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 05:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Why not invoke what is in 2599, and maintain some-fing-where within the body of law that if you abort a viable fetus, that there is some-fing-level of liability?

Apparently that is *so* far off he table that one has to justify it as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost. Which, if I read your response above, you are saying just that.

That is as grotesque as the adamant right-to-lifers stance of 'Too bad, you had a nice bounce in the hay, you knew the potential cost -- so carry it to term b-tch.'

I guess if you can balance Gosnell as being okay I can see why one cannot fathom even imposing an iota of liability. Anywhere.

Come on. Really?

Certainly when you come down on the side of providing a law that has zero liability under any and all circumstances you *just* stated that the abortion of a viable fetus as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost.

So, yes. Really. I find that extremism *just* as grotesque as the equal but opposite stance of 'TFB, carry to term, b-tch'.

Quote:

Quote:I personally cant balance the actions of Gosnell as being *anywhere* close to fing acceptable.

Good for you. Neither can I.

You actually just did.

read your own words:

Quote:What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

In the above you just balanced a justification of accepting a Gosnell result against your dream scenario of providing unrestricted abortions. And you came down on the side of your dream scenario of no abortion has *any* penalty whatsoever.

"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities. Given your answer, I asked myself why they put that part of the bill in place. After doing some reading on the matter, it seemed that it was the difficulty getting doctors to participate in needed 3rd trimester abortions given the threat of criminal liability.

Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).

Quote:

Quote:The lifting of criminal penalties seems to be an effort to address the problem that so few doctors are willing to undertake a 3rd term abortion even under extreme circumstances because they are frightened of ending up in jail. So there are instances when a pregnant woman needs a late-term abortion for serious health issues or for a non-viable fetus and she isn't able to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

The lifting of not just 'criminal' penalties, but *all* fing liabilities, mind you, no matter what effort it seemingly addresses, sweeps the abortion of a viable fetus (even at 8.9999 months) into the Too Fing Bad pile. Notwithstanding all your justification above.

As for non-viable late term -- those are pretty fing obvious. My wife underwent one if truth be told. I seriously doubt that there is much 'frightening' and hiding in corners on that, having been down that path personally.

Non-viability is a pretty fing obvious condition that can be documented pretty ******* easily no matter what you imply and state above.

And again, a womens 'serious' health issue is a pretty fing obvious conclusion as well. And again I have been close (very close) to that as well. When a women's respiratory system, or immune system, or other vital function is anything close to 'a little out of normal' based on pregnancy, it is pretty obvious. When those abnormalities rise to a 'serious health issue', it is even far more obvious. Those situations are pretty easy to document.

Really? Pretty easy to diagnose? Obvious?

How about the times when a completely normal 3rd term pregnancy has a sudden complication? And it's a serious threat to the woman's health and the situation goes from 0 to 100 within a short time? And an abortion is needed however there are almost no doctors around that are willing to participate in a 3rd term abortion under any circumstances due to threat of criminal liability?

Quote:Look, I have no issue with non-viable and women's physical health late term abortions. You say you have an issue with Gosnell situations, but interestingly think that those are copacetic with the 'zero liability -- ever' New York regime. That last stance doesnt even pass the basic 'makes any sense' test.

Gosnell bad bad bad bad. But...... how about no legal liability ever for those types of actions. Something doesnt compute there.....

The issue of abortion is so hard. I think most of us struggle with it. It's hard to say when life begin and I certainly understand those that feel that abortion at any point during the pregnancy is murder. I wish there was no need for abortions.

I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.

To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists. It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.

*edit* I'm sorry you and your wife went through that.

It as NOT hard to say when life starts, as you allege above. It starts when sperm meets egg.

It also is not hard to say when that fertilized egg is human. It is always human. Take a sample from it and analyse it in a lab, and the results will come back “human”, not Fox or turtle.

Fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, all just stages in the development of a fertilized egg into a mature human.

Abortion is the legal killing of a human. We have other human killings that are legal. The whole abortion fight is about defining the limits of the legality.

(05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 11:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 10:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 05:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Why not invoke what is in 2599, and maintain some-fing-where within the body of law that if you abort a viable fetus, that there is some-fing-level of liability?

Apparently that is *so* far off he table that one has to justify it as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost. Which, if I read your response above, you are saying just that.

That is as grotesque as the adamant right-to-lifers stance of 'Too bad, you had a nice bounce in the hay, you knew the potential cost -- so carry it to term b-tch.'

I guess if you can balance Gosnell as being okay I can see why one cannot fathom even imposing an iota of liability. Anywhere.

Come on. Really?

Certainly when you come down on the side of providing a law that has zero liability under any and all circumstances you *just* stated that the abortion of a viable fetus as a 'bummer, sh-t happens' cost.

So, yes. Really. I find that extremism *just* as grotesque as the equal but opposite stance of 'TFB, carry to term, b-tch'.

Quote:

Quote:I personally cant balance the actions of Gosnell as being *anywhere* close to fing acceptable.

Good for you. Neither can I.

You actually just did.

read your own words:

Quote:What is more likely to happen?

Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.

Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.

I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

In the above you just balanced a justification of accepting a Gosnell result against your dream scenario of providing unrestricted abortions. And you came down on the side of your dream scenario of no abortion has *any* penalty whatsoever.

"Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities. Given your answer, I asked myself why they put that part of the bill in place. After doing some reading on the matter, it seemed that it was the difficulty getting doctors to participate in needed 3rd trimester abortions given the threat of criminal liability.

Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).

Quote:

Quote:The lifting of criminal penalties seems to be an effort to address the problem that so few doctors are willing to undertake a 3rd term abortion even under extreme circumstances because they are frightened of ending up in jail. So there are instances when a pregnant woman needs a late-term abortion for serious health issues or for a non-viable fetus and she isn't able to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

The lifting of not just 'criminal' penalties, but *all* fing liabilities, mind you, no matter what effort it seemingly addresses, sweeps the abortion of a viable fetus (even at 8.9999 months) into the Too Fing Bad pile. Notwithstanding all your justification above.

As for non-viable late term -- those are pretty fing obvious. My wife underwent one if truth be told. I seriously doubt that there is much 'frightening' and hiding in corners on that, having been down that path personally.

Non-viability is a pretty fing obvious condition that can be documented pretty ******* easily no matter what you imply and state above.

And again, a womens 'serious' health issue is a pretty fing obvious conclusion as well. And again I have been close (very close) to that as well. When a women's respiratory system, or immune system, or other vital function is anything close to 'a little out of normal' based on pregnancy, it is pretty obvious. When those abnormalities rise to a 'serious health issue', it is even far more obvious. Those situations are pretty easy to document.

Really? Pretty easy to diagnose? Obvious?

How about the times when a completely normal 3rd term pregnancy has a sudden complication? And it's a serious threat to the woman's health and the situation goes from 0 to 100 within a short time? And an abortion is needed however there are almost no doctors around that are willing to participate in a 3rd term abortion under any circumstances due to threat of criminal liability?

Quote:Look, I have no issue with non-viable and women's physical health late term abortions. You say you have an issue with Gosnell situations, but interestingly think that those are copacetic with the 'zero liability -- ever' New York regime. That last stance doesnt even pass the basic 'makes any sense' test.

Gosnell bad bad bad bad. But...... how about no legal liability ever for those types of actions. Something doesnt compute there.....

The issue of abortion is so hard. I think most of us struggle with it. It's hard to say when life begin and I certainly understand those that feel that abortion at any point during the pregnancy is murder. I wish there was no need for abortions.

I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.

To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists. It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.

*edit* I'm sorry you and your wife went through that.

It as NOT hard to say when life starts, as you allege above. It starts when sperm meets egg.

It also is not hard to say when that fertilized egg is human. It is always human. Take a sample from it and analyse it in a lab, and the results will come back “human”, not Fox or turtle.

Fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, all just stages in the development of a fertilized egg into a mature human.

Abortion is the legal killing of a human. We have other human killings that are legal. The whole abortion fight is about defining the limits of the legality.

(05-18-2019 08:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?
Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.
Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.
I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

I think 2 is far more likely. And 1 can be fixed with the simple solutions that Tanq has suggested herein. But this law goes far beyond those. And the only logical reason for no liability ever is to set up option 2.
And I guess the other question I have is what is the difference between aborting and giving birth to a non-viable fetus? Either way, you get a dead baby. Whereas the difference between aborting and giving birth to a healthy, viable baby is pretty signifiant. I recognize that the issues facing, say, a young unwed pregnant girl can be pretty daunting. It seems to me that one solution to her dilemma is to make adoption a more viable and less difficult option. We have this huge ethical opprobrium again having babies for sale. But a young expectant mother with the options of having an abortion or having the child on behalf of a childless couple willing to pay her is one that I think would be resolved in favor of carrying to term more often than not, and I really don't see the great ethical dilemma there. It's certainly better than abortion.

In reality that is not the case. In the most adoption set-up these days, there are typically significant amounts of transfers between the parties. And not all are 'pregnancy health related' costs. Further, the negotiations for those transfers very much resemble a large-scale business negotiation and can be very complex. And often require negotiating with multiples of other of offers in the mix.
After our travails (including multiple rounds of in vitro) we got very familiar with this path. And the economic expectations are not insignificant. In reality there really is no difference between 'cash on the barrelhead for a good in sale' and most of the adoption 'arrangements' out there -- the main significant difference is that in the adoption setting there is no 'breach of contract' if the goods never show up.
So, when I hear that we as a society have this overriding shudder about 'babies for sale', in practice a very good amount of the adoption process is just that.

As it should be. "Babies for sale," beats the hell out of, "Babies to be aborted."

(05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  "Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.

Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).

Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.

Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.

In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.

Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.

To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.

Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.

The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.

The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.

Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.

Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.

Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.

I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.

If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

Quote:*edit* I'm sorry you and your wife went through that.

Thank you. The decision for the procedure was not an issue. The larger issue was the discovery of the non-viability.

(05-18-2019 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?
Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.
Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.
I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

I think 2 is far more likely. And 1 can be fixed with the simple solutions that Tanq has suggested herein. But this law goes far beyond those. And the only logical reason for no liability ever is to set up option 2.

And I guess the other question I have is what is the difference between aborting and giving birth to a non-viable fetus? Either way, you get a dead baby. Whereas the difference between aborting and giving birth to a healthy, viable baby is pretty signifiant. I recognize that the issues facing, say, a young unwed pregnant girl can be pretty daunting. It seems to me that one solution to her dilemma is to make adoption a more viable and less difficult option. We have this huge ethical opprobrium again having babies for sale. But a young expectant mother with the options of having an abortion or having the child on behalf of a childless couple willing to pay her is one that I think would be resolved in favor of carrying to term more often than not, and I really don't see the great ethical dilemma there. It's certainly better than abortion.

You guys are very fond of saying "this is a perfect summation of the difference between conservatives and liberals". I'll do the same here... this is a perfect summation of the difference between conservatives and liberals as it pertains to this issue.

You don't see a difference between aborting versus carrying a non-viable fetus to delivery. If you were to ask women faced with that dilemma I would bet you that many (the majority?) would be appalled. A great number of women in that situation would deal with life-altering psychological trauma if they were forced to carry that nonviable fetus to birth. And because I know that some of you aren't sure that psychological trauma merits an abortion then how about the possible physical damage of being forced to carry that fetus to term? It's not like the state of pregnancy is a completely benign condition. It's not like women in the USA don't die every day from complications related to being pregnant.

As stated, I find abortion an extremely complicated issue and I can understand many POV when it comes to this issue. Your stance is not one I can get behind even a little bit.

I think the difference between liberals and conservatives on abortion depends mostly on who they identify with.

Liberals focus on the woman - how does this affect her life, her health, her mental health.

Conservatives focus on the child. It’s life, it’s rights.

(05-18-2019 11:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?
Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.
Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.
I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

I think 2 is far more likely. And 1 can be fixed with the simple solutions that Tanq has suggested herein. But this law goes far beyond those. And the only logical reason for no liability ever is to set up option 2.
And I guess the other question I have is what is the difference between aborting and giving birth to a non-viable fetus? Either way, you get a dead baby. Whereas the difference between aborting and giving birth to a healthy, viable baby is pretty signifiant. I recognize that the issues facing, say, a young unwed pregnant girl can be pretty daunting. It seems to me that one solution to her dilemma is to make adoption a more viable and less difficult option. We have this huge ethical opprobrium again having babies for sale. But a young expectant mother with the options of having an abortion or having the child on behalf of a childless couple willing to pay her is one that I think would be resolved in favor of carrying to term more often than not, and I really don't see the great ethical dilemma there. It's certainly better than abortion.

You guys are very fond of saying "this is a perfect summation of the difference between conservatives and liberals". I'll do the same here... this is a perfect summation of the difference between conservatives and liberals as it pertains to this issue.
You don't see a difference between aborting versus carrying a non-viable fetus to delivery. If you were to ask women faced with that dilemma I would bet you that many (the majority?) would be appalled. A great number of women in that situation would deal with life-altering psychological trauma if they were forced to carry that nonviable fetus to birth. And because I know that some of you aren't sure that psychological trauma merits an abortion then how about the possible physical damage of being forced to carry that fetus to term? It's not like the state of pregnancy is a completely benign condition. It's not like women in the USA don't die every day from complications related to being pregnant.
As stated, I find abortion an extremely complicated issue and I can understand many POV when it comes to this issue. Your stance is not one I can get behind even a little bit.

I think you are extrapolating a bit further than I intended with my comment. My point was that either way the baby is dead. As for your point about the psychological trauma, do you not think there is great psychological trauma involved in having an abortion? I know one person who had an abortion, and she experienced great psychological trauma that had significant negative effects on her subsequent life and on the life of at least one of her subsequently born children. As for the physical damage of being forced to carry the unborn baby to term, life or health of the mother is one of the exceptions that I have clearly stated as favoring.

My point is that dead baby versus dead baby is not nearly as great a difference as dead baby versus live baby. That is all I was trying to say.

And on this issue, I am on neither the right nor the left. I am pro-choice with specific limitations which I have enunciated repeatedly here. I suppose my position makes me a "conservative" in the sense that my position was pretty much the American position for about the first 150 years of the republic, before the religious right nutcases began taking over some legislatures in the 1920s or so and later. I oppose both the Alabama law and the New York law.

(05-18-2019 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?
Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.
Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.
I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

I think 2 is far more likely. And 1 can be fixed with the simple solutions that Tanq has suggested herein. But this law goes far beyond those. And the only logical reason for no liability ever is to set up option 2.
And I guess the other question I have is what is the difference between aborting and giving birth to a non-viable fetus? Either way, you get a dead baby. Whereas the difference between aborting and giving birth to a healthy, viable baby is pretty signifiant. I recognize that the issues facing, say, a young unwed pregnant girl can be pretty daunting. It seems to me that one solution to her dilemma is to make adoption a more viable and less difficult option. We have this huge ethical opprobrium again having babies for sale. But a young expectant mother with the options of having an abortion or having the child on behalf of a childless couple willing to pay her is one that I think would be resolved in favor of carrying to term more often than not, and I really don't see the great ethical dilemma there. It's certainly better than abortion.

You guys are very fond of saying "this is a perfect summation of the difference between conservatives and liberals". I'll do the same here... this is a perfect summation of the difference between conservatives and liberals as it pertains to this issue.
You don't see a difference between aborting versus carrying a non-viable fetus to delivery. If you were to ask women faced with that dilemma I would bet you that many (the majority?) would be appalled. A great number of women in that situation would deal with life-altering psychological trauma if they were forced to carry that nonviable fetus to birth. And because I know that some of you aren't sure that psychological trauma merits an abortion then how about the possible physical damage of being forced to carry that fetus to term? It's not like the state of pregnancy is a completely benign condition. It's not like women in the USA don't die every day from complications related to being pregnant.
As stated, I find abortion an extremely complicated issue and I can understand many POV when it comes to this issue. Your stance is not one I can get behind even a little bit.

I think you are extrapolating a bit further than I intended with my comment. My point was that either way the baby is dead. As for your point about the psychological trauma, do you not think there is great psychological trauma involved in having an abortion? I know one person who had an abortion, and she experienced great psychological trauma that had significant negative effects on her subsequent life and on the life of at least one of her subsequently born children. As for the physical damage of being forced to carry the unborn baby to term, life or health of the mother is one of the exceptions that I have clearly stated as favoring.

Agree with you on the psychological trauma of abortion. I want no part of making the decision for that pregnant mother in that predicament. I'm for letting her decide which pathway is best for her.

Quote:And on this issue, I am on neither the right nor the left. I am pro-choice with specific limitations which I have enunciated repeatedly here. I suppose my position makes me a "conservative" in the sense that my position was pretty much the American position before the religious right nutcases began taking over some legislatures in the 1920s or so and later. I oppose both the Alabama law and the New York law.

I imagine that you and I are pretty aligned on this issue (as well as I can be aligned because I haven't completely worked out my feelings on every facet of abortion).

(05-16-2019 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that I have enjoyed particularly about this particular chat room is that we have been able to disagree, sometimes very strongly, while for the most part not being disagreeable. I think that is a lesson that we as a nation need to learn. Maybe the world should just be run by Rice people.

Hear, hear! Most of the folks here are terrific sparring partners.

That's what makes At Ease and his sidekicks such outliers. It's not that they were insulting, it's that they deliberately doubled down on it: when given a chance to apologize and when approached by personal overture, they rejected the former and rebuffed the latter. Then they not only continued their attacks and but also patted each other on the back while doing so. It takes a lot of cowardice to be like that.

(05-18-2019 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And on this issue, I am on neither the right nor the left. I am pro-choice with specific limitations which I have enunciated repeatedly here. I suppose my position makes me a "conservative" in the sense that my position was pretty much the American position before the religious right nutcases began taking over some legislatures in the 1920s or so and later. I oppose both the Alabama law and the New York law.

I imagine that you and I are pretty aligned on this issue (as well as I can be aligned because I haven't completely worked out my feelings on every facet of abortion).

Many legal and political watchers (including, at the time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have pointed out that such a thoughtful middle ground is exactly where we would have arrived legislatively if Roe v. Wade had not tried to short-circuit the political give-and-take by fiating a result.* Roe is very much the Dred Scott of our time.

*That was also my position in my 14th Amendment class in law school, the only course in which I got an A+. That and $10 might buy me lunch.