Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

[Atreus21]

Try considering "research" from countries that aren't predominantly catholic, there's your problem.

Oh no that's right, you're a catholic single issue voter who cherry picks data to fit your world view.

Nevermind.

So Poland wasn't Catholic until 1990?

 

[Paratus]

If abortion is made illegal, what will be the treatment for ectopic pregnancies? What about molar pregnancies? What about a woman who becomes pregnant and then is diagnosed with an invasive cancer? It has been readily established that there is no perfect moment of "personhood" during pregnancy.

These are the realities that women and medical providers face in this issue. Unfortunately, many refuse to acknowledge the meaning and significant consequences of their proposed policies.

From various court cases and stories regarding prolife people in the US and South America the answer is let them risk death. There's been many cases of raped children being asked to risk birth, mothers denied medical procedures or lawsuits to prevent medical procedure that might harm a fetus.

I think even as the goal-posts of viability and prematurity shift, there still is a fundamental problem. Depending on when/how one defines a pregnancy, up to 50% of fertilized eggs never make it to term. There are issues with implantation, chromosomal abnormalities, etc that causes spontaneous abortion. Then from the other end of the spectrum, twinning occurs days up to a week or two after fertilization of the egg, making conception another flawed logical starting point. I think it will be very difficult to find an objective starting point of viability/personhood/etc given these nuances.

Somehow this argument never persuades prolifers. The woman who takes RU486 at 6 weeks and aborts a fetus, kills a "child". The woman who spontaneously aborts 6 fetuses/fertilized eggs trying to get pregnant kills no one. Hmm....

No reason we can't charge women with criminal negligence for that.

If a conception "personhood" law ever made it on the books I'd want every lawmaker and spouse who had a child after that law was put in place arrested for child endangerment and possibly negligent homicide. Prolifers shouldn't get to chose which fertilized eggs they count as children.

 

[abj13]

Are late term abortions for reasons other than medical happening in any sort of frequency? Do you have some data on that? Otherwise arbitrary restrictions doesn't seem like a good basis for creating laws.

95% of abortions in the US occur before 15 weeks of gestation. Only 1.3% occur after 21 weeks.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6512a1.htm

I can't remember, where I've seen it, but most abortions beyond 21 weeks are in the 21-24 week stage (the so-called late-term abortion).

 

[abj13]

Yes. Killing one's own child ought to be illegal. Just like murder is.

So, based on your logic, a mother getting the medically recommended treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is a murderer?

 

[Atreus21]

So, based on your logic, a mother getting the medically recommended treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is a murderer?

Of course not. I mean generally, not absolutely. Most pro-lifers make exceptions when the mother's life is clearly at stake.

 

[abj13]

Conception is a much less arbitrary starting point than viability.

Ah, so based on your sentence structure, conception is a completely arbitrary starting point too. If it wasn't arbitrary, you would have said as much. This is exactly why the Supreme Court stepped in and said that decisions about arbitrary starting points should be left to the person making the medical decision.

 

[fskimospy]

And the increase of abortions in the wake of Roe v. Wade? Does that also strain credulity?

It's more like it's incredibly hard to know if that increase actually happened as we have no reliable data on the number of illegal abortions that took place before Roe v. Wade.

Of course it's not a good outcome. I'm not in favor of mothers killing themselves while trying to kill their children.

Do these studies deal with countries before and after abortion laws are passed or struck down?

I guess I have a hard time accepting the conclusion that penalties have no effect on practice, which is what these studies are saying in essence.

I mean those studies are available for you to read, they have lots of different aspects they analyze. Generally though yes, they found that penalties were not effective at decreasing abortions.

If that's genuinely the case, as an increasing body of research shows, wouldn't safe and legal abortion be the most life-friendly stance?

 

[kage69]

So Poland wasn't Catholic until 1990?

Hells bells you are predictable.

Fine, play dumb. Wouldn't want you to leave your comfort zone now would we?

 

[Paratus]

Require the girl to give birth to the child rather than kill it.

She's going to do it if not stopped. How do you "require" her not to.

I don't see why they'd have to intervene.

If they don't she'll have an illegal abortion and "kill the child "

Yes. Killing one's own child ought to be illegal. Just like murder is.

So your solution is let her kill the "child" and prosecute later.

There are multitudes, scads of organizations that support pregnant teens like this.

If the teen thing is confusing, then picture a woman who is going to follow through with an abortion - same scenario.

Does the state try to stop the illegal activity before it occurs like it does with drugs, (intent to distribute) or murder, (conspiracy to commit murder), or are you suggesting only prosecuting and punishing after the abortion occurs?

If it's the later why treat abortion differently than murder in your mind?

If it's the former how do you keep a woman from committing an abortion? Ostensibly she could starve or harm herself until it spontaneously occurred.

 

[IronWing]

If it's the former how do you keep a woman from committing an abortion? Ostensibly she could starve or harm herself until it spontaneously occurred.

That wouldn't be legitimate abortion.

 

[hal2kilo]

Hells bells you are predictable.

Fine, play dumb. Wouldn't want you to leave your comfort zone now would we?

This one trick pony is great at it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If reported abortions isn't a true reflection or even indicator of the true number of abortions, then where are these studies getting their numbers?

Who cares, you believe them, that's what they care about.

Back alley abortions aren't registered in any way.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Oh, abortion being the single issue vote? sad. Our world is over populated and hateful as it is...

 

[Atreus21]

She's going to do it if not stopped. How do you "require" her not to.

If they don't she'll have an illegal abortion and "kill the child "

What is this, Minority Report? I could kill my co-workers right now if I wanted to. Does the law have to intervene?

So your solution is let her kill the "child" and prosecute later.

Of course. Does she merit prosecution before killing the child?

If the teen thing is confusing, then picture a woman who is going to follow through with an abortion - same scenario.

Does the state try to stop the illegal activity before it occurs like it does with drugs, (intent to distribute) or murder, (conspiracy to commit murder), or are you suggesting only prosecuting and punishing after the abortion occurs?

The state should punish illegal activity. I still don't see where you're going with this.

If it's the latter why treat abortion differently than murder in your mind?

If it's the former how do you keep a woman from committing an abortion? Ostensibly she could starve or harm herself until it spontaneously occurred.

I can't keep a woman from committing abortion, even if abortion is illegal. Neither can the state. All it can and should do is punish illegal behavior after the fact. You're not guilty until you act.

 

[Atreus21]

Ah, so based on your sentence structure, conception is a completely arbitrary starting point too. If it wasn't arbitrary, you would have said as much. This is exactly why the Supreme Court stepped in and said that decisions about arbitrary starting points should be left to the person making the medical decision.

I accepted your premise that conception is not a guarantee of a healthy child. In that sense it may be arbitrary. It's still the best of all possible starting points, arbitrary though it may be.

 

[abj13]

Of course not. I mean generally, not absolutely. Most pro-lifers make exceptions when the mother's life is clearly at stake.

Nearly 1 out of 5 Americans believe abortions should be banned in all situations. Many legislative pushes have been to ban abortions no matter the situation. This is not some minute number of the population.

Anyways, so you agree that the mother has rights that can trump the rights of the conceptus. How does one define "life clearly at stake?" Pregnancy in itself is a risk factor for death. In fact, the relative risk of death from pregnancy, compared to abortion, is 14 times HIGHER. Pregnancy can lead to gestational diabetes which increased the subsequent risk of development of diabetes outside of pregnancy. Hypertension, anemia, thrombosis, and infections are all increased risk during pregnancy. One can add the risks of preeclampsia, HELLP syndrome, and so forth.

This is exactly why I agree with the view that the Supreme Court put into place. It isn't for me to sit on a high horse to judge these issues of personhood/health/etc because all of these views are arbitrary, this should be left up to the person facing this decision and her medical provider.

 

[abj13]

I accepted your premise that conception is not a guarantee of a healthy child. In that sense it may be arbitrary. It's still the best of all possible starting points, arbitrary though it may be.

No, selection of conception as a starting point is above and beyond the most flawed starting point. At conception, 50% of fertilized eggs will result in no individual. In addition, at conception, the fertilized egg can split into one, two, or three plus individual conceptuses (twinning). There's no logical argument that can solve these issues created by our own human biology.

 

[Atreus21]

It's more like it's incredibly hard to know if that increase actually happened as we have no reliable data on the number of illegal abortions that took place before Roe v. Wade.

It seems to me fair to draw at least some causal link between the wholesale legalization of a previously prohibited activity, then a quick surge in that activity.

I mean those studies are available for you to read, they have lots of different aspects they analyze. Generally though yes, they found that penalties were not effective at decreasing abortions.

Well, here's something:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/380475?seq=1#fndtn-page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract Theory suggests that abortion restrictions will influence fertility outcomes such as pregnancy, abortion, and birth. This paper exploits the variations in abortion policy generated in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s to examine their impact on fertility outcomes. We distinguish among countries with severe, moderate, and few restrictions on abortion access and examine the impact of changes across all three categories. As we hypothesize, the results indicate that countries that changed from very restrictive to liberal abortion laws experienced a large reduction in births. Changes from modest restrictions to abortion available on request, however, led to no such change in births despite large increases in abortions, which indicates that pregnancies rose in response to more liberal abortion availability. This evidence is generally consistent with the situation that was brought about by changes in abortion access in the United States.

[/QUOTE]

 

[chucky2]

Have they actually ever documented when a fetus brain actually has activity? It would seem that once a fetus has a brain w/ activity, that fetus would be defined as a living person, albeit still under development. if that's at 15 weeks (or whatever it is), why not just set the abortion cutoff there - unless a documented health risk to mother (to be reviewed by state independent panel to keep pro-abortion women and doctors honest) and/or some tragic baby deformity/disease - and call it a day? Never understood why this is some large issue with modern equipment...

 

[agent00f]

I honestly don't care about early or late term abortions. Not sure why we keep as a society focusing on niche issues that have minimal societal impact but ignore huge glaring things that are affecting us all.

Really, like you thought long and hard about this and couldn't figure out why people make political hay?

 

[IronWing]

Have they actually ever documented when a fetus brain actually has activity? It would seem that once a fetus has a brain w/ activity, that fetus would be defined as a living person, albeit still under development. if that's at 15 weeks (or whatever it is), why not just set the abortion cutoff there - unless a documented health risk to mother (to be reviewed by state independent panel to keep pro-abortion women and doctors honest) and/or some tragic baby deformity/disease - and call it a day? Never understood why this is some large issue with modern equipment...

The goal of the anti-choice folks is to push an arbitrary cut-off time to some point before a woman knows she is pregnant. Or, in the case of at least one Republican official, two weeks before a woman even had sex.

 

[agent00f]

The goal of the anti-choice folks is to push an arbitrary cut-off time to some point before a woman knows she is pregnant. Or, in the case of at least one Republican official, two weeks before a woman even had sex.

No, the goal of the anti-choice folks is to round up the religious vote. This literally has nothing to do with health any more than creationism has to do with biology, even if liberals are dumb enough to get strung along for 100+ pages.

 

[Paratus]

What is this, Minority Report? I could kill my co-workers right now if I wanted to. Does the law have to intervene?

No minority report required. Basically I'm trying to tease out if you really intend to treat abortion as murder. You don't.

If a woman called a hit man to kill her 21 year old son and the cops find out she be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder and/or attempted murder.

If a woman called a Dr to perform an illegal abortion to kill her 21 week old fetus and the cops find out you've stated they should do nothing until she's killed the fetus.

So if you consider abortion=murder why are you treating them differently?

Of course. Does she merit prosecution before killing the child?



The state should punish illegal activity. I still don't see where you're going with this.

If abortion is murder then attempting abortion is attempted murder. Attempted murder is punishable by prison time. Why isn't attempted abortion?

I can't keep a woman from committing abortion, even if abortion is illegal. Neither can the state. All it can and should do is punish illegal behavior after the fact. You're not guilty until you act.

But the state can stop a woman from abortion. For attempted murder prison separates the victim from the attacker.

With pregnancy the only way that is possible is to imprison them in a medical ward and force treatment until birth.

Declaring abortion equals murder puts a legal framework in place where a pregnant woman must give birth or else the state forces birth.

Many catholic leaning countries already pursue these laws including against raped children. This turns women into state enslaved incubators.

That is my point.

 

[chucky2]

The goal of the anti-choice folks is to push an arbitrary cut-off time to some point before a woman knows she is pregnant. Or, in the case of at least one Republican official, two weeks before a woman even had sex.

If (for the sake of argument) the brain activity test shows that fetus is active at 15 weeks, then women having sex need to be making sure they're doing a PG test every week, 2 weeks, month, whatever, else they're going to get stuck with not murdering the now human life inside of them. If you're responsible enough to have sex, you're responsible enough to ensure you get an abortion before the cutoff. If you're not responsible enough to do that, well, that's on you...

(Fed fund BC and PG tests, free at local store ((for the Fed funded brand))). I still don't see why it's so hard. Are the PG tests not reliable? Has this been done already and the PG tests won't show positive until after what we already know is brain activity, thus rendering this logical line of progression moot?

 

[JSt0rm]

Atreus has got owned so much in this thread. Let's face it. This is his religion.