Cite please.
I must have nmissed them. I don’t recall seeing any morbidity statistics on third trimester abortions versus third trimester premature delivery/ceasarian.
OK then we really are back on page two. Do you at least recognize the state interest in fetal life?
Yeah maybe. I think the March of Dimes is slightly more cerdible on this issue that a more general news outlet like MSNBC (not imputing motive just competence).
I’m not saying we should ignore it. I take it into account and then stilld decide that live babies are better than dead babies.
Its hard to keep track. But I don’t remember anyone calling it out either.
The point behind banning elective abortions of helathy third trimester pregnancies is because it is the right thing to do not because it will placate the pro-life protesters. It DOES take away their ability to hold up pictures of third trimester abortions and say “SEE!!! THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE CONDONING WHEN YOU SUPPORT CHOICE!!!”
Yes because we should just go out and kill everyone with disabilities today. It would be the human thing to do. Put them out of their misery.
Reductio ad absurdam is not an invalid method of argument. It is the corner cases that test the validity of your position. It usually doesn’t work very well because the other side usually says "well in that case I will make an exception’ The problem is that in the current debate, your side is not willing to make an exception for such extreme cases because of all that it implies about the status of the fetus.
No, it is in fact very instructive about the merit of your position.
And the state’s interest in life does not begin until the moment of birth?
Did you miss all those posts where I talk about all the support services we should provide to these kids? Its not like we are talking about millions of kids a year, we are talking about 1000 third trimester abortions (100 according to folks from your side), we can afford it.
OK you’ve convinced me. After the third trimester we should ban abortion and force women to carry to term. We don’t tie her down or anything but we send her obstetrician (back alley or otherwise) to jail for murder if he performs a third trimester abortion. If there is in fact no diffrence between the two positions then I will choose the position taht results in more healthy babies.
Wait? NOW its a person? NOW you have all this concern for the fetus? If the rate of severe disability is only 25% at the earliest stages of the third trimester then don’t you think youa re overstating your case?
Yep. She can have that child later if she wants after she puts this one up for adoption but she can’t kill the fetus.
Because a viable fetus is more than a potential life.
YES, she does, in the same way I believe a living healthy human being has the right to terminate their own lives at any point they want.
You and I may not like the fact that they have that right, but they do. I do not believe anyone has the right to force a woman to give birth to a child if she does not. PERIOD. It’s her body, and no one anywhere can decide for her what she chooses to do with it unless you agree for her to decide for you what you may do with yours.
I posted that the rate of death from abortion is one per 11,000 at 21 weeks or later.
No. I’ve said that repeatedly.
It’s not an MCNBC story. It’s an AP story about a study by British Researchers that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I also don’t think it would stop them from holding up signs.
Another strawman. We’re not talking about killing disabled people. We’re talking about your position, which is that women who don’t want a child should be forced to have a C-section and deliver a preterm baby which will require prolonged medical care and has a strong chance of being disabled. Killing people is not the issue. We’re talking about deliberately disabling people. I don’t see how it’s better for a woman to be forced to have a premature baby when she doesn’t want one instead of having a healthy child later.
If you say so. Unfortunately comments like “Yes because we should just go out and kill everyone with disabilities” indicates it’s more of a caricature than an argument.
I’d define the moment of birth here as the start of labor, maybe.
Yes, I saw that you’re willing to subject them to a lifetime of disability and have the government help cover some of the suffering it is causing.
It’s not about the cost, it’s about the inhumanity of the idea.
It’s no less restrictive than what you’re proposing. And if your primary concern is with the fetus and not the mother, I think this is the more humane proposal from your standpoint.
It’s a person according to you. Since the fetus is (according to you), you are harming both the fetus and the mother.
No, I don’t. I do notice that you keep ignoring that 20 percent of the fetuses wouldn’t survive anyway because they are being born prematurely. Given a 20 percent risk of death and 50 percent risk of disability for the children that survive (with half of those disabilities being severe), I don’t think I am overstating anything.
And I don’t think know if you could really say “the rate of severe disability is only 25 percent” with a straight face. That’s a very high rate. And you keep ignoring that the death rate is already 20 percent.
[quote]
A viable fetus is a potential life by definition. That’s exactly what it is.
For you, maybe. I’ve not read the 11 pages so far of this thread, but I urge you to consider another angle: pragmatism. Consider that women are going to have abortions whatever the law says, and would you not prefer them to have them done safely in a safe environment rather than going to a back-street abortionist?
I apologise, I do not know how to answer to a single quote. I wish I did. I tried once to do so and it didn’t work as I thought it should.
You didn’t cut out anything That I wrote, that was all I wanted to say.
I apologise, I do not know how to answer to a single quote. I wish I did. I tried once to do so and it didn’t work as I thought it should.
You didn’t cut out anything That I wrote, that was all I wanted to say.
The fault was mine. I was jusr answering Dumari. Sorry for the double post.
No problem. It requires a little bit of editing and testing. For example if I want to cut my response out of your post, which normally looks like this –
I would go into the quote tags, delete the tag with my name, the text I’d written, and the quote tag that goes at the end. At first it looks like this:
[noparse]
[/noparse]
And after editing it would look like this:
[noparse]
[/noparse]
Which comes out like this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html
Outlawing abortion will not end it. Most of you are not old enough to remember what it was like when abortion was outlawed in most states. The rich could always go abroad to get one. They were outside the ugliness that the poor were in. But college kids and the poor got back alley abortions. They were dangerous and many died getting them. We all knew what the dangers were. But having a kid when you are too young and unable to take care of it, is bad for you and the child. Forcing a woman to have a child she can not afford or can not take care of is not doing a service for either one.
You will start a new industry, back alley abortions, dangerous and expensive. That will happen.
You can not legislate morality. Those in a tough spot or with contrary values will still go ahead.
I wonder, perhaps if the woman has carried the fetus to the viable stage where it can survive outside the womb,and wants to have an abortion, then since she has gone this far with her pregnancy, she could have it deliverd by Cesarean
section, and then some person who calls them selves pro-life should be there to take the soon to be born and adopt it as their own, regardless of the circumstance in their lives. The woman would no longer be owner of the pregnancy, and the Pro-birth person would then take on the responsibility for raising the child to adult hood. The woman would no longer be forced to carry the now called child ,and the pro-life person could then be satisfied that they had saved a woman from abortion, and the woman would no longer have her life in jepordy.
Aside from quibbles about telling the woman which surgeries she is or isn’t allowed to have, this doesn’t sound too bad, but I gotta ask, where are you going to find a pro-lifer willing to take on the responsibility for a long-term hospitalized incubated premee with a high chance of dying or retardation, on short notice? Sure, they talk a good line about wanting to preserve and sustain life, but I strongly suspect what when it comes down to the wire and the price tag, most of them are completely full of shit, and the remainder aren’t exactly on call.
To his credit, Damuri Ajashi is willing to have the government shoulder the burden of attending to the dead and infirm that his policies would generate.
I don’t know how to tell you this but, they don’t have that right. The states have the right to BAN abortions in the third trimester (unless the health or life of the mother is at stake), its not a matter of my liking it or not. Read Roe v Wade sometime when you get a chance, or perhaps just read throught this thread.
Would you like to rephrase this in light of the fact taht states may in fact ban third trimester abortions (and 39 states do)?
I think you are confusing banning abortion generally with criminalizing abortion in the third trimester. I think oursocial sevice system can absorb a thousand extra babies (even if a quarter of them were disabled (that 25% number assumes that all the third trimester abortions occur within the frist couple fo weeks of the third trimester) and all 1000 of those third trimester pregnancies are elective 9which doesn’t appear to be even close to reality)
No it won’t, we are not talking about banning abortion generally. We are talking about banning third trimester abortions.
Of course you can. We do it all the time. We ban everything from murder to polygamy.
It will be tough to get someone to perform a third trimester abortion if they can go to jail for murder.
And did you see the aprt where I posted that mortality rates from ceasarians are significantly lower than that?
Sorry, damn firewall doesn’t allow me to click on links. How would you explain the discrepency between the march of Dimes numbers and the numbers in the AP article?
My point is that we should ignore what those guys want.
Why do people keep forgetting that adoption is an option. Its not have a severely disabled child now versus healthy baby later. Its have a child now that might be severely disabled (about 25% of the time), put it up for adoption AND have another child later.
You seemed to place no value on a disabled life. As if you were better off dead than disabled.
The reason so many folks use the baby’s first breath as a line in teh sand is because once you say, life begins at “labor” “viability” or anything else, they are afraid of the slippery slope. It seems to me that viability is a much easier to defend principle than labor. What makes yous ay labor? Just the distaste for killing a baby that is undeniably ready to come into the world?
Good, so you can drop the argument that I am abandoning these kids. Perhaps you can also drop the argument that all these kids are going to end up disabled.
Once again you seem to think these kids are better off dead than disabled. If that is the case, then why don’t we just kill all the disabled folks, we would be doing them a favor right?
Didn’t we already establish that a premature delivery is less risky than third trimester abortion? Your point seems to be that we should let the mother undertake a more risky procedure in order to let her kill the fetus.
If you think it is more humane to force the mother to carry third trimester pregnancies to term then I have no argument with you but how do you jsutify forcing a woman to stay pregnant for three more months? Are we as a society willing to say that a woman incurrs an obligation to carry to term if the pregnancy enters the third trimester?
Yeah but you are at once denying my premise (that the fetus is a person after viability) and relying on that premise.
The 20% were going to be killed by abortion anyway, we are trying to save who we can without stepping on the mother’s right to not share her womb with her fetus.
The death rate doesn’t matter. They were going to be aborted remember? 25% disabled is better than 100% dead.
By definition? Where are you getting that from? Can you provide a cite?
I’d be OK with telling the pro-lifers to put up or shut up because I think many of them are much more interested in being holier than thou than the fetus or the mother. But I still think that supporting them out of the general tax revenue makes more sense.
Put up or shut up? Heh, that would be fun to implement: “Those voting “yes” for “ban third trimester abortions” will be required to fill out this form, signing themselves up for the “fetal lottery”. This lottery will be performed any time a woman elects not to claim parentage over the fruits of her loins*. At that point, a computer will randomly select one of the lottery entrants, who will be given the parental rights and complete financial responsibilities for the child, including all medical costs of the possibly-premature infant.”
- “The expiration point of the woman’s right to reject parentage is currently in debate. It will certainly be late enough to allow women choosing an early c-section to do it. That is medically indistinguishable from a c-section perfermed after the woman goes into labor, so those must be included too. And to avoid incentivising unnecessary c-sections, all naturally-born children will be grandfathered in too. The debate is currently vacillating between 16 and 18 years as the final fetal cutoff age for no-responsibility abandonment. Arguments for the latter number are currently favored, as they would allow for complete dissolution of the state-run orphanage system, with the current costs of the system being absorbed by the winners of the lottery system.”
I do not think the general public should have to pay for a fetus because some religions call it murder. The fact (it seems to me) that it is easy for a so called pro-lifer to force a woman to risk her life and in some cases leave other children motherless,or in danger of abuse. If the so called pro-life person is so adament, the money spent on traveling to Planned parent hood centers, and etc. were then used to support the child themselves, and take care of the child once born by Cesaeran, then I could believe they are not just pro-birth.
If the third term soon to be born could now be adopted by the “pro-life” persons, the woman would no longer have to have the burden of a pregnancy and the pro-lifer could be satisfied, then both would have their way. If the pro-birthers would want to adopt the fetus jointly then fine, but do not impoverish people who have no say in it to pay the price!
You don’t think a principled person who is not driven by religion could be pro-life? You can’t just paint this as some stupid religious whackery. If it was religious concerns alone then this debate would be about whether we should be baning abortions int he first trimester.
Its not some irrational religious preference. It simply prioritizes the life of a fetus over the choice of a woman to have an abortion (in this case, during the third trimester).
You make a lot of assumptions there that are not supported by facts or reality.
Noone in this thread is talking about a woman taking a greater risk or death than she would be exposed to during an abortion (as far as I can tell, all of our collective findings support the fact that delivery (even via C-Section) is safer than a third trimester abortion), noone is advocating a woman risking her life to have a child, I thought we dropped that claim about 8 pages ago.
I support the state paying for the children. If the richest nation in the world can’t raise tax revenue to feed and clothe children then I don’t know wtf we can raise taxes for.
We have a foster care system. Its not perfect and I’m certainly open to ideas for improving the system but it generally works and it frequently leads to adoption. Noone has to choose between poverty and killing their third trimester fetus.
Now remember, we are talking about third trimester abortions ONLY. So you can have an abortion pretty much at will before the third trimester, we aren’t driving women into back alley abortions and causing a huge population of prematurely born babies. The data we have found says that there are no more than 1000 third trimester abortions and many of those abortions are either medically necessary or the result of a severely deformed fetus. I think the system can afford that many more kids.
How can the system afford more kids,when it is claimed to be already burdened with expenses, and people do not want to pay taxes to support the already born, for health care and education. I think more should be taught to be responsible and every woman of child bearing age should have easy access to the morning after pill. Do you know the percentage of people who call them selves pro-life would want the woman to have access to the morning after pill, or good instructions from an early age, why they should think of the responsibilities of concieving a child?
The one’s I know may be an exception, but they do not want to pay taxes, nor do they educate their children or want the children of others to be taught responsible sex education except by their parents, who in some cases do not belive in it for religious reasons (mostly). I find it strange that so many so called conservatives are against pro-choice but do not want to pay the taxes that ensue because of people having children they cannot afford to care for, financially, physically or emotionally. That is why I say, it is not pro-life, but anti choice. There are exceptions of course in every case. I do not want to decide what another does if it is legal.
Damuri: If a woman seeks an abortion after the 3d trimester, has it delivered by Casearan section and is adopted by the pro-life person (or persons) then it wouldn’t be an abortion, the pregnancy would continue in an incubator and both woman and child would then be safe. The child would have a good home and both sides would be content knowing the woman didn’t abort(or kill,nor have to continue to have her body used if she didn’t choose to willingly ) and the pro-lifer would have saved a baby.