# Those states banning abortions made sure to pass laws supporting single mothers, right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2019, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538 "2019-05-26T05:01:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538/81 "2019-05-29T19:30:04Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m representing my own opinion in this thread, unless stated otherwise, so the criteria used by the doctor would be entirely up to the doctor, based on guidelines set forth by the state board of medical directors or, better yet, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And who sets these guidelines? That is my question, one that you have kicked the can down the road on. The medical directors are going to need to know what the criteria are, and the ACOG will as well. The doctor may be able to tell whether it is a 90%, 50%, or 10% chance, but he cannot tell which of those is acceptable without actual guidance from the community that is demanding this of him. So, stop trying to pawn off your responsibility on another, you are the one who wants this sort of legislation, you are the one who want others to follow your moral code, you must now actually give a straight answer as to what probability is acceptable? This is not going to be set by doctors, not without input from politicians, anyway. If you cannot give a straight answer to what chances you consider to be acceptable, then you shouldn’t be advocating for others to make that decision for you. > [@](#): > > Notably, the doctor’s opinion is not subject to review by jury except in the most extreme cases where he has already been expelled by his peers on the state medical board. In that case the jury determines whether the doctor broke a law, not whether his medical judgement was sound. But, as no one actually knows what criteria we are operating under, we don’t know if is an extreme case until they are on trial. > [@](#): > > ETA: Actually I could say the same thing as an anti-abortion advocate. I thought you were saying that as an anti-abortion advocate. > [@Max\_S](#): > > A child (already birthed) does not normally require bone marrow transfusions, whereas a fetus normally requires the cooperation of its mother’s body. Not normally, but it happens. Should [this mother](https://www.livescience.com/65263-baby-born-without-skin.html) be required to give her skin to her child? > [@](#): > > I think breastfeeding is another comparison. Although the displeasure before breastfeeding pales in comparison to pregnancy before birth, the principle is the same _if_ a fetus has rights. Either the mother provides her own milk or she finds another way to get nutrients to the kid, or the state charges her with gross negligence for letting the kid starve. The comparison breaks down a little in magnitude and also because the state can step in and take custody of an infant, while this is less feasible (impossible) for a fetus. Yeah it breaks down to where it is no longer relevant. For ages and ages we’ve had wet nurses for women who didn’t want to deal with breastfeeding, we have never had surrogate uteri for women who don’t want to deal with being pregnant anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538/82 "2019-05-29T20:16:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And who sets these guidelines? That is my question, one that you have kicked the can down the road on. The medical directors are going to need to know what the criteria are, and the ACOG will as well. > > The doctor may be able to tell whether it is a 90%, 50%, or 10% chance, but he cannot tell which of those is acceptable without actual guidance from the community that is demanding this of him. > > So, stop trying to pawn off your responsibility on another, you are the one who wants this sort of legislation, you are the one who want others to follow your moral code, you must now actually give a straight answer as to what probability is acceptable? This is not going to be set by doctors, not without input from politicians, anyway. > > If you cannot give a straight answer to what chances you consider to be acceptable, then you shouldn’t be advocating for others to make that decision for you. I think a “reasonable chance” of survival, or alternatively “near-certainty” that the already-born child will die, is enough for the state board/ACOG. I could name an arbitrary percentage such as 90% or 95% but these don’t help a doctor at all during an individual case - doctors don’t go around saying “you have a 90% chance of coming down with this disease”, they say “people in similar situations have a 90% chance of coming down with this disease, and I’m near-certain that you will too because this, this, and this”. There is considerable variety of symptoms and prognosis within populations affected by any given condition, and just about every medical guideline has a catch-all exception for the reasonable judgement of the good doctor. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > But, as no one actually knows what criteria we are operating under, we don’t know if is an extreme case until they are on trial. By extreme, I meant the doctor has already had his or her license revoked due to the same procedure. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I thought you were saying that as an anti-abortion advocate. I _think_ I was thinking about a situation where the child is birthed, not aborted, but needs an organ transplant to survive. Yeah, sometimes I am confused myself. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not normally, but it happens. Should [this mother](https://www.livescience.com/65263-baby-born-without-skin.html) be required to give her skin to her child? I draw the line at what is expected. Unless that lady _knew_ that her potential baby would “near-certainly” require skin grafts, I don’t think it’s right to punish her for it - her rights to her own skin trumps the kid’s claim on her skin. For more serious transplants or if the mom has a condition (such as immunodeficiency) we can’t force the mother to risk death. That being said, if she just left the kid to die without even making phone calls or asking around for help - if she does not make a reasonable effort to provide for the needs of her child - _then_ I reserve the right to judge her behavior. Failing to provide her own skin or pay for an expensive operation is not, in my opinion, morally reprehensible. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Yeah it breaks down to where it is no longer relevant. For ages and ages we’ve had wet nurses for women who didn’t want to deal with breastfeeding, we have never had surrogate uteri for women who don’t want to deal with being pregnant anymore. Don’t you see what I meant though? Just uh, ignore all the parts of the analogy that don’t work, then it works :D. Pregnancy is sort of unique, isn’t it? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538/83 "2019-05-29T20:52:45Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I think a “reasonable chance” of survival, or alternatively “near-certainty” that the already-born child will die, is enough for the state board/ACOG. I could name an arbitrary percentage such as 90% or 95% but these don’t help a doctor at all during an individual case - doctors don’t go around saying “you have a 90% chance of coming down with this disease”, they say “people in similar situations have a 90% chance of coming down with this disease, and I’m near-certain that you will too because this, this, and this”. There is considerable variety of symptoms and prognosis within populations affected by any given condition, and just about every medical guideline has a catch-all exception for the reasonable judgement of the good doctor. No, what the say is “in cases like yours, X% had this outcome”. If they are talking about cancer, and someone says the doc said they had 6 months to live, what the doc actually said was, “With cancer at this stage, the 6 month survival rate is under 50%.” The do understand and use statistics all the time. What they do not understand or have any use for are undefined criteria. So, the doc says to the woman, “Women with your condition have X% chance of bringing the child to term.” I am asking, because it will need to be defined by someone, what that X is. If you don’t want to define it, that’s fine, just don’t try to impose arbitrary and ambiguous standards on the medical community. > [@](#): > > By extreme, I meant the doctor has already had his or her license revoked due to the same procedure. So, because they were operating without a license? Sure, that’s prosecutable right now. But how did they lose their license? Because others decided that their judgement wasn’t good enough, and substituted their own and penalized the doc. Don’t you at least see how this is going to make the doc err on the side of not performing the medical procedures that are needed for the health of the mother? > [@](#): > > I _think_ I was thinking about a situation where the child is birthed, not aborted, but needs an organ transplant to survive. Yeah, sometimes I am confused myself. > > I draw the line at what is expected. Unless that lady _knew_ that her potential baby would “near-certainly” require skin grafts, I don’t think it’s right to punish her for it - her rights to her own skin trumps the kid’s claim on her skin. For more serious transplants or if the mom has a condition (such as immunodeficiency) we can’t force the mother to risk death. That being said, if she just left the kid to die without even making phone calls or asking around for help - if she does not make a reasonable effort to provide for the needs of her child - _then_ I reserve the right to judge her behavior. Failing to provide her own skin or pay for an expensive operation is not, in my opinion, morally reprehensible. > > Don’t you see what I meant though? Just uh, ignore all the parts of the analogy that don’t work, then it works :D. Pregnancy is sort of unique, isn’t it? Pregnancy isn’t all that unique. Go down south, adn there’s a decent chance that you could become host to a botfly larva. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538/84 "2019-05-29T21:28:54Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, what the say is “in cases like yours, X% had this outcome”. If they are talking about cancer, and someone says the doc said they had 6 months to live, what the doc actually said was, “With cancer at this stage, the 6 month survival rate is under 50%.” > > The do understand and use statistics all the time. What they do not understand or have any use for are undefined criteria. > > So, the doc says to the woman, “Women with your condition have X% chance of bringing the child to term.” > > I am asking, because it will need to be defined by someone, what that X is. If you don’t want to define it, that’s fine, just don’t try to impose arbitrary and ambiguous standards on the medical community. Well by definition any percentage will be arbitrary… how about 5%? that’s standard clinical statistical significance. I’m not a doctor and would prefer doctors to have the debate. So let’s say your doctor tells you people with your condition have a 97% chance of giving birth to a child who will need skin grafts. According to the proposed law, you are free to have that child but it is your responsibility to ensure that the child gets the skin grafts - either you provide the donor tissue or you find donor tissue or you can face a fine. If the baby dies because you didn’t provide donor tissue, you can be charged with gross negligence. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, because they were operating without a license? Sure, that’s prosecutable right now. No, because other doctors decided the original judgement wasn’t good enough, substituted their own, and penalized the doc by stripping away his or her medical license and referring the matter to criminal court. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > But how did they lose their license? Because others decided that their judgement wasn’t good enough, and substituted their own and penalized the doc. > > Don’t you at least see how this is going to make the doc err on the side of not performing the medical procedures that are needed for the health of the mother? No, I don’t. Doctors already have to worry about getting their license revoked and possible criminal charges for medical malpractice. I’m not adding any extra liability for the doctor, not in this thread at least. If the doctor says the mother is nearly-certain to give birth to a deformed child, and she knew this before having sex, and she did not take reasonable precautions such as contraceptives or abortion, in my opinion she deserves to be on the hook. The doctor isn’t doing anything differently. Well I guess now the doctor is telling the woman that she’s on the hook whereas before it would have just been “in cases like yours, X% had this outcome”. Let’s say the law and that situation came to pass, then the woman is in court and claims “Oh well the state should pick up the bill and it’s not my fault the kid was born without skin even though I knew it would happen”. What is her defense? A right to have sex without consequences? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538/85 "2019-05-29T21:58:12Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Well by definition any percentage will be arbitrary… how about 5%? that’s standard clinical statistical significance. I’m not a doctor and would prefer doctors to have the debate. This is not a medical matter. This is a matter of public policy. A doctor can tell you if a procedure is safe, and they can tell you the odds, but they cannot tell you what to do. In this case, there is a law telling them what to do. So, you are settling on 5%. So, if a woman has a 94% of miscarrying a child, then you are willing to let those 18 babies die to let her have one? Mighty generous of you. > [@](#): > > So let’s say your doctor tells you people with your condition have a 97% chance of giving birth to a child who will need skin grafts. According to the proposed law, you are free to have that child but it is your responsibility to ensure that the child gets the skin grafts - either you provide the donor tissue or you find donor tissue or you can face a fine. If the baby dies because you didn’t provide donor tissue, you can be charged with gross negligence. And if it was just 94%, then you’re off scott free. > [@](#): > > No, because other doctors decided the original judgement wasn’t good enough, substituted their own, and penalized the doc by stripping away his or her medical license and referring the matter to criminal court. Yes, they second guessed the doctor’s judgement, as I said would happen if you do not give them actual guidelines and criteria. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t. Doctors already have to worry about getting their license revoked and possible criminal charges for medical malpractice. I’m not adding any extra liability for the doctor, not in this thread at least. If a patient dies, and a doc can show that he followed all the guidelines, then he will not be in any trouble. If someone is second guessing his decision to perform an abortion he saw as medically necessary, and there are no guidelines, then how does he have any way of telling whether he did the right thing? > [@](#): > > If the doctor says the mother is nearly-certain to give birth to a deformed child, and she knew this before having sex, and she did not take reasonable precautions such as contraceptives or abortion, in my opinion she deserves to be on the hook. And your near certain percentage is pegged at 95%, right? > [@](#): > > The doctor isn’t doing anything differently. Well I guess now the doctor is telling the woman that she’s on the hook whereas before it would have just been “in cases like yours, X% had this outcome”. Doctor and a lawyer. Can she get a second opinion? If the first doc says 96%, but she goes shopping for one that says 94%, does that second opinion get honored, or is it only the higher? > [@](#): > > Let’s say the law and that situation came to pass, then the woman is in court and claims “Oh well the state should pick up the bill and it’s not my fault the kid was born without skin even though I knew it would happen”. What is her defense? A right to have sex without consequences? Well, her defense against a law that treats her body as a part of state property, she has no defense. She is not a person with rights, she is an incubator owned by the state. I am saying that we should avoid making laws that would put a woman in such a position in the first place. And, to be honest, I think that this kid should never have been delivered, and should have been putout of its misery. It is going to live for a few years at most, in pain and never being able to touch anyone for fear of damage or infection, and it, and society, would be best off had it been euthanized at birth if not sooner. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538/86 "2019-05-29T22:24:45Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > And your near certain percentage is pegged at 95%, right? Near-certain is not pegged at 95%. I’m pretending that I looked at extensive aggregate data, and was qualified to render an opinion that for one particular condition, the data shows 95% occurrence and I consider that to be near-certain. Then the other doctors on the board agreed with me, and we promulgated a rule saying for this particular condition the woman is on the hook. This process could even take place before the law is enacted, and that particular condition written into the law: “if a woman should be diagnosed by her current doctor with such conditions as X, Y, or Z, she shall be responsible for obtaining donor skin for any children born to her or face a misdemeanor…” > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Doctor and a lawyer. Can she get a second opinion? If the first doc says 96%, but she goes shopping for one that says 94%, does that second opinion get honored, or is it only the higher? She can get a second opinion and she gets to pick whose diagnoses stick. But that’s not how it works with the percentages. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Well, her defense against a law that treats her body as a part of state property, she has no defense. She is not a person with rights, she is an incubator owned by the state. I am saying that we should avoid making laws that would put a woman in such a position in the first place. > > And, to be honest, I think that this kid should never have been delivered, and should have been putout of its misery. It is going to live for a few years at most, in pain and never being able to touch anyone for fear of damage or infection, and it, and society, would be best off had it been euthanized at birth if not sooner. Her body isn’t state property and I don’t see how you came to that conclusion. She is being penalized for gross negligence that endangering the health of her future child. It’s not immediate, but it’s certain and foreseeable and preventable and has a well defined period between the act and the consequences. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538/87 "2019-05-30T02:17:13Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > a. Child support payments. Why do the states not help single mothers who can’t get these payments? The father could be dead, in jail, unknown, could have lost his job, or simply not make enough money to afford adequate payments to remotely cover the cost of taking care of a child. > > An obvious fix would be for the states - especially these “pro life” states who want to force all their citizen women to have all their babies - to be the one making the child support payments. Which should be indexed to inflation, zip code, and actual costs of a child, not some nominal made up number. And then the state can put a heavy tax on the income of the fathers, but not interrupt the payments to the mother if something happens to the father’s ability to pay. > > b. These states offer free college for a bachelor’s degree in a valuable subject or trade school, which is basically the bare minimum for decent paying, sustainable employment to all children of destitute mothers, right? I mean that would be the minimum thing to do if people were “pro life”. It’s not very pro life to have most of the citizens in the state condemned to near poverty all their lives because they can’t pay the tuition and fees needed for employment in a decent job, right? > > c. They fund medicaid for these single mothers as well as they fund medicare, right? I mean, surely the state’s newest citizens are worth at least as much to the state as citizens who are on their way out, right? Surely they don’t underpay doctors and hospitals with stingy payments, ensuring that children on medicaid get poor quality or nonexistent treatment, right? > > d. Housing. Surely these states don’t deliberately underfund police and schools, creating “bad areas” of town where violence and drug abuse is endemic, right? And thus make it where all these single mothers who couldn’t get abortions are forced to live there, right? I would endorse all of these, plus hiring an army of social workers who are expert in childrearing to help such mothers learn parenting and coping skills. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-states-banning-abortions-made-sure-to-pass-laws-supporting-single-mothers-right/834538.md?page=4)