Oklahoma's anti-abortion bill

[ElFenix]

Yep. and theres a news story out today about a botched abortion and the fetus, at 22 weeks, lived for two days afterwards. So at minimum its 22 weeks.

i used to know a girl who had an abortion, it was botched, she didn't know it, and now she's got a great kid.




anyway, this law should be stricken asap.

Fair enough. Somewhere between 5 seconds after conception and 5 seconds before birth, a child becomes human.

If we are responsible and humane, we ought to establish what point that is before we allow abortion.

iirc, per planned parenthood v. casey, the point at which states can outlaw abortion is when medical technology would allow the fetus to survive outside the womb. that's about the 3rd trimester, which was where the rigid trimester setup in roe v. wade had the line. at common law abortion was legal until the 'quickening,' which is when the fetus started kicking. that's about halfway through.


anyway, a full national and satisfactory discussion about this is difficult to have due to the court decisions: "y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish." scalia certainly is right about that one. democratic deficit is a serious problem with a lot of decisions where the court has, for whatever reason, kicked social policy forward above the trend line.

 

[shira]

I'm with Atreus21 on this. A fetus becomes a human at some point before birth. Biologically it's a human as soon as has its own DNA. But early in pregnancy there is a high likelihood of natural miscarriage, so it seems unreasonable to consider it to be a human at that point.

I can tell you one thing... humanity has nothing to do with being in or out of the womb. How is it possible for a fetus that's 2 weeks away from birth to be less human than a baby born 2 weeks premature?

You haven't read my posts. Very few people argue that a woman should have the unrestricted freedom to abort an almost-full-term fetus. Using that extreme example to argue that all women who want abortions - regardless of the stage of the fetus - should face restrictions is intellectually dishonest.

The fact is, almost 90% of abortions occur during the first trimester, and placing hurdles in place to make it more difficult for women to receive such abortions is ideological extremism, plain and simple. It is like the Taliban preventing girls from going to school.

 

[daishi5]

We are allowed to terminate people. Are you familiar with "pulling the plug" when someone is on life support?

We are not allowed to terminate someone by pulling the plug. Only a person, or in situations where the person is unable to make the decision, his legal surrogate can make that decision, and they are supposed to make the decision according to their understanding of his or her wishes. I am actually very familiar with the law in my own state as I just reviewed a policy on termination of patients, and all of the requirements for such a decision. In the case of a fetus, we do not consult the fetus, nor do we attempt to determine what it would wish. And, yes I am aware that you cannot do that with a fetus, but in pulling the plug, we do our best to honor what the patient would want. It is our best attempt to let the patient decide what treatment they receive.

Okay. My position is that a life cannot be ended without a good freaking reason. In my opinion, good freaking reasons are the following: If the mother's life is at stake, and in the case of rape and incest (although I'm conflicted on that reason).

I understand that, but it is your moral stance, and I don't feel that forcing the woman to have the child is right either. I am conflicted, because I don't like killing the child, but given that the mother does not want the child, I don't feel it is my place to tell her what she should do.

 

[Throckmorton]

You haven't read my posts. Very few people argue that a woman should have the unrestricted freedom to abort an almost-full-term fetus. Using that extreme example to argue that all women who want abortions - regardless of the stage of the fetus - should face restrictions is intellectually dishonest.

The fact is, almost 90% of abortions occur during the first trimester, and placing hurdles in place to make it more difficult for women to receive such abortions is ideological extremism, plain and simple. It is like the Taliban preventing girls from going to school.

That's not what I said at all. I was just pointing out that birth can't possibly be the point at which it becomes human.

BTW, it IS the position of most pro-choicers that life only begins at birth and that abortion should be legal during the entire pregnancy.

 

[MotF Bane]

But "liberty" is one of the stated rights of citizens, and that right trumps a state's freedom to force women to undergo medical procedures as a pre-condition for receiving abortions.

Or do you only read the portions of the Constitution that support your ideology?

Quoted for posterity. I'm sure this will be useful later.

 

[shira]

That's not what I said at all. I was just pointing out that birth can't possibly be the point at which it becomes human.

BTW, it IS the position of most pro-choicers that life only begins at birth and that abortion should be legal during the entire pregnancy.

"Life" is an ambiguous term. I'm pro-choice, and I believe that the zygote is alive. So I believe that "life begins at conception." However, that's a lot different from saying at what point I believe a fetus becomes a person.

So you seem to be saying that "most pro-choicers" believe that a fetus isn't a person until birth. I'd be surprised if even 5% of pro-choicers would agree with that statement.

So why don't you start a poll on the developing fetus? Include the following responses:

I'm pro-choice, and I believe that a fetus doesn't become a person until birth.
I'm pro-choice, and I believe that a fetus becomes a person at some point after conception but prior to birth.
I'm pro-choice, and I believe that a fertilized human egg is a person.
I'm anti-abortion, and I believe that a fetus doesn't become a person until birth.
I'm anti-abortion, and I believe that a fetus becomes a person at some point after conception but prior to birth.
I'm anti-abortion, and I believe that a fertilized human egg is a person.

I think you'll be surprised at the responses you get.

Edit: Also, add an additional poll:

I'm pro-choice, and I believe that a woman should have unrestricted access to abortion at any point prior to the birth of the baby.
I'm pro-choice, and I believe that a woman's unrestricted access to abortion should end at some point prior to the birth of the baby.
I'm anti-abortion, and I believe that a woman should have unrestricted access to abortion at any point prior to the birth of the baby.
I'm anti-abortion, and I believe that a woman's unrestricted access to abortion should end at some point prior to the birth of the baby.

I think you'll find almost no pro-choicers who think abortions should be totally unrestricted.

 

[Throckmorton]

If I could poll the general public I would.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if a person believes that abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, and even partial birth, and the rhetoric hinges on "MY body", the fetus is never considered a human.

 

[shira]

If I could poll the general public I would.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if a person believes that abortion should be legal up to the point of birth, and even partial birth, and the rhetoric hinges on "MY body", the fetus is never considered a human.

Poll ATPN.

 

[blackangst1]

Wait...wasnt Scott Peterson convicted of killing his unborn kid? That clearly shows we afford constitutional rights to unborn children. So the law recognizes "a person" before said person is out of the womb.

Edit: and for the hell of it, here's my response to shira's impromptu poll (edited to fit my thoughts):

I'm anti-abortion, and I believe that a woman's unrestricted access to abortion should end at some point prior to the birth of the baby (but ONLY in the case of rape or incest).

 

[zsdersw]

Ah. Then any and all life support functions should be withheld at birth...and may the fittest survive.

Got it.

No, you don't "got it". The point is that the baby cannot survive without its mother at some point prior to birth (including at 22 weeks). At and after birth it can survive with the support of almost anyone else.

 

[zsdersw]

I wholly reject the idiotic notion that support of a woman's reproductive rights means that they are supportive of abortion.

In spite of the fact that abortion is legal, the number of abortions has been decreasing since at least the 1990's. That tells me there's no real need for any government action. People can be convinced to not have abortions. This is far more lasting of an action toward the goal (as few abortions as possible) than simply passing laws making it illegal.

 

[Atreus21]

I wholly reject the idiotic notion that support of a woman's reproductive rights means that they are supportive of abortion.

In spite of the fact that abortion is legal, the number of abortions has been decreasing since at least the 1990's. That tells me there's no real need for any government action.

So has the murder rate. Is that reason enough to decriminalize it?

 

[zsdersw]

So has the murder rate. Is that reason enough to decriminalize it?

The two issues are not even remotely comparable. Nothing about abortion is enough to change anything about any other issue.

Murders are committed primarily out of malice, which is nowhere near what the motives for abortion are.

 

[BeauJangles]

Wait...wasnt Scott Peterson convicted of killing his unborn kid? That clearly shows we afford constitutional rights to unborn children. So the law recognizes "a person" before said person is out of the womb.

Edit: and for the hell of it, here's my response to shira's impromptu poll (edited to fit my thoughts):

I'm anti-abortion, and I believe that a woman's unrestricted access to abortion should end at some point prior to the birth of the baby (but ONLY in the case of rape or incest).

So when people say "abortion" you're envisioning 8.5 month-old babies being stabbed with a knife.

There are so few people in this country that support late-term abortions as an option available to pregnant women, unless there is some life-threatening situation to the mother.

Abortion, as usually carried out and as discussed by the not-crazy fringe on either side, happens very early in pregnancies, well before any cognitive capacity is developed.

 

[Atreus21]

The two issues are not even remotely comparable. Nothing about abortion is enough to change anything about any other issue.

Murders are committed primarily out of malice or revenge, which is nowhere near what the motives for abortion are.

I'm not comparing the two events of murder and abortion, but simply pointing out that laws need not be made simply because they're affective. They ought to be made also on principle. Murder is illegal first because it's wrong, and second because, if it were legal, it would be more prevalent.

Abortion at some point should be illegal for the same reason if you ask me.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not comparing the two events of murder and abortion, but simply pointing out that laws need not be made simply because they're affective. They ought to be made also on principle. Murder is illegal first because it's wrong, and second because, if it were legal, it would be more prevalent.

On principle? Why? If something is not occurring or not occurring at any statistically significant rate why is a law necessary?

 

[blackangst1]

So when people say "abortion" you're envisioning 8.5 month-old babies being stabbed with a knife.

Maybe Im a little hung over, but Im trying to figure out how you came to this conclusion. Since its so incorrect.

There are so few people in this country that support late-term abortions as an option available to pregnant women, unless there is some life-threatening situation to the mother.

And yet its still legal.

Abortion, as usually carried out and as discussed by the not-crazy fringe on either side, happens very early in pregnancies, well before any cognitive capacity is developed.

Thanks Capt. Obvious.

 

[BigDH01]

Fair enough. Somewhere between 5 seconds after conception and 5 seconds before birth, a child becomes human.

If we are responsible and humane, we ought to establish what point that is before we allow abortion.

This logic will not work. I can pick any arbitrary point during pregnancy and then make the argument, "Why is it 5 seconds after this point it considered murder and 5 seconds before considered an abortion?" What really changed in that 10 seconds? Do we know the exact time consciousness starts? Is it instantaneous or does it build over a period of time?

I also wouldn't use a few outlier cases to determine when a fetus is viable. If .1% of babies are viable at 22 weeks, should we outlaw all abortions at 22 weeks? And, of course, the babies viable at that age will likely require a million dollars or more of care (which will likely be a rather substantial percentage of the baby's lifetime earnings).

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089046084131.htm

Ryan was not a million-dollar baby, but he wasn't far from it. The cost for his first two months in the hospital exceeded $400,000, not including certain surgeries and procedures. Because Eric is a technology security expert at the U.S. Energy Dept. and Andrea is an intelligence analyst for a government contractor, the family had good health insurance through the Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal Employee Program. They could also navigate the government bureaucracy and get Ryan qualified for Medicaid, which covered the bills that Blue Cross didn't. To help pay for a nurse, they applied for another state program in Maryland. "We used to play a game: How many bills would we get?" says Eric. "We got up to 12 per day."

And that's for a 28 week baby. The reality is that if everyone had babies at 22 weeks, we'd quickly go bankrupt and insurance/hospital care would be unaffordable. As a matter of policy, I do not consider that to be the age of viability (it would be totally unaffordable for society). This is especially true given the likely nature of the people looking for an abortion at 22 weeks.

 

[ShawnD1]

About that million dollar baby, are parents allowed to refuse treatment? Like the baby is already born and the doctor says "he will need X surgery to live" can the parents say no?

I'm asking because it would effectively be the same as an abortion, but it happens a few weeks later.

 

[Thump553]

ShawnD1: the short answer to your question is no. If the parents refused treatment, the state would institute emergency proceedings to make the baby a ward of the state, have the treatment done then bill the parents for the treatment cost (plus probably all the wardship costs).

BTW, apparently most people here haven't actually read Roe v. Wade, for it has a lengthy discussion of the viability of fetuses (under roughly 1970 era medicine) and specifically tailors it's ruling accordingly-the trimester system.

Also, I guess noone else is as upset as I am with this bill's specific institutional protection of doctor's deliberately lying to their patients without liability. Surprising.

 

[BigDH01]

About that million dollar baby, are parents allowed to refuse treatment? Like the baby is already born and the doctor says "he will need X surgery to live" can the parents say no?

I'm asking because it would effectively be the same as an abortion, but it happens a few weeks later.

If the mother could refuse, then the argument that the baby is viable at 22 weeks so an abortion shouldn't be allowed is kind of superfluous. Yes, the baby might survive, but the aborting mother would refuse to give the care anyway (and a 22 week old baby will needs lots of expensive care).

If the care is compulsory, then we can pretty much forget about free market driven healthcare for children. That renders demand inelastic and the market fails.