|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Jan 30, 2019 16:53:13 GMT -8
First New York where Governor Cuomo signed into law a bill to allow abortion up to nine months, and now, a Virginia law has been introduced to do the same thing.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jan 30, 2019 17:49:21 GMT -8
Optics are pretty bad on this. What's the reasoning from their side on it?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jan 30, 2019 18:02:45 GMT -8
Ben Sasse failed to deliver the entire quote, and is misleading the context of it. He didn't mention the "in case of severe physical deformities, or if the fetus is not viable".
Keep it real, Ben.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jan 30, 2019 18:05:12 GMT -8
I don't care what anybody says! It's outright MURDER!!!!!Liberalism is a sick disease.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jan 30, 2019 21:08:46 GMT -8
Well, before I offer an opinion on this, I'd like to understand what the deal really is.
The way it's being framed up is as a precursor to a reexamination of Roe v. Wade. Sasse or anyone else who frames this up without the proper context does a huge disservice to the credibility of the point.
Coach, if you think abortion is murder, that's fine. I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just looking for a balanced presentation of the facts beforehand.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jan 31, 2019 9:35:54 GMT -8
Clearly a very touchy subject, so excuse the offense if any is inferred. None is intended. One of my biggest complaints about politics and the media is the rush to sensationalize the latest "news". Look what happened to the Covington students - Sandmann in particular - when a snippet of the event, neatly framed within the context of an agenda, went viral. In this case, the right is framing this piece from the VA governor as something out of the movie 300...  What's missing is the context, specifically terminal birth defects such as anencephaly. Without going into the question of whether or not this proposed law would allow women to simply change their mind at child birth and toss it off the cliff, should a family / hospital, etc. be required to care for a child that has no chance of survival beyond a couple weeks at most? |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Feb 1, 2019 11:09:57 GMT -8
Abortion has always been a tricky issue with me. My wife is militantly pro-life so I don’t talk much about it at home. But I have always appreciated both sides of this issue. I am morally opposed to the concept but I understand how others would not see it as a moral issue. Compelling a woman to carry a 4-week pregnancy to completion against her will when she had no intention of becoming pregnant is a little bit difficult for me defend. If you have assume life begins at conception you have a very strong point, but science cannot define when life begins. That is more of a philosophical conclusion.
But allowing abortions after a fetus is clearly viable - which on the average is around 32 weeks and often less - I think is clearly wrong both philosophically and scientifically. When I was first training back East I was a third year med student assigned to a local community teaching hospital. My senior resident was an interesting guy from Cameroon whom I much respected. One of the senior attendings did an abortion procedure on some girl late in the evening and we were assigned to assess the fetus -I can’t remember why we needed to do that. I looked at this dead baby – that’s what it was, no "fetus" - that look damned near full-term. I was stunned but since I was so inexperienced I assumed this was routine and kept my mouth shut. My resident was silent for a few minutes while he examined the baby and I could tell that he was clearly upset. Finally he looked at me and just said "Terrible. This is no 22-week fetus" and stalked away. The fact that he was so upset about it made me feel that my own initial impressions were justified.
I cannot see any reason to routinely justify late term abortions………………Luca
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 1, 2019 15:40:25 GMT -8
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, Mr. 4th Trimester abortion advocate, is in deep doo-doo.... From The Virginian-Pilot:  |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 2, 2019 14:26:19 GMT -8
Abortion has always been a tricky issue with me...I cannot see any reason to routinely justify late term abortions Same here. But in this particular case, isn't it really the medical aspect of non-viable babies that are at issue? I haven't read what's proposed, but I have a real hard time with the gov't requiring a woman to carry and care for a legitimately non-viable baby. The scientific / medical question I've got in this regard is whether or not certain in-womb diagnoses can ascertain legitimate non-viability? If so, I'd support a law giving the woman the option to either abort or allow the baby's life to end at the hospital. My understanding of anencephaly is the baby does not feel pain, but I'm not sure of other terminal birth defects. Is there a doctor in the house? |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Feb 2, 2019 15:04:27 GMT -8
I assume by "nonviable" you mean a fetus that is not going to survive outside the womb, as with a severe spinal cord defect or anencephaly, for example. No, I don't think you can defend requiring carrying that kind of pregnancy to term, either. An anencephalic child has little or no brain development and although external stimuli can be detected and can elicit a reflexive response, they cannot be processed or consciously sensed. But of course many of these abnormalities can be detected long before the fetus would be theoretically able to survive outside the wound, anyway
I don't know the wording of the law but I read that the author of this bill said that it would allow an abortion for any reason at any time up until - and during, for God's sake - birth. If that interpretation is correct this is truly immoral legislation. At a certain point, this becomes infanticide.
Of course, neither life nor biology is black and white. There is no compelling reason why the speed limit has to be 65 mph versus 62 or 67. But there does need to be one and it has to be definable. It's not clear how often the situation would arise, but if a woman at 36 weeks of a healthy, normal pregnancy suddenly decides she doesn't want to be a mother, I think that by that time this fetus or baby has a right to live its life whether the mother wants to be inconvenienced by it or not.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 2, 2019 16:25:31 GMT -8
I worked for Philips Medical Systems for over 20 years, in the diagnostic ultrasound division of the business. Early in my career, I taught applications, technique and even diagnosis to new users of our equipment. That experience makes it particularly galling for me to hear fetuses referred to as "fetal tissue" or "clumps of cells". I remember dozens, if not hundreds, of scans when I saw a second-trimester fetus play with it's toes or ears, suffer from the hiccups, and react with the wave of an arm when I gently poked the mother's lower abdomen above the fetus. They are not clumps of cells at that point.
And second, in this day and age of routine ultrasound exams during pregnancy, I can't imagine a case of anencephaly going undiagnosed to the point of birth. Even in the primitive days of ultrasound in the mid 1970's, a fetus without a head could be easily diagnosed by a first-day novice on the equipment as early as the late first trimester. So unless a Loretta Lynn is pregnant in some remote Butcher Holler outback, an anencephalic fetus would be known for months before it is born, and the likelihood of such a surprise at birth is almost zero.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 3, 2019 11:21:33 GMT -8
The above is a lot less incendiary than what's being touted by the right.
Got the ultrasound bit MDD. That makes sense. Are there fairly common occurrences whereby the viability of the baby or the danger to the mother would present themselves in the 3rd trimester? Trying to understand the benefit of not requiring 2 doctors to certify continuing a pregnancy, as well as the "substantially and irremediably" language requirement. I understand that language provides safeguards against a single doctor / patient willing to acquiesce to a simple change of the mind, and would oppose changing the law for exactly that reason. Was hoping for some more rationale as to why such a change might make sense.
At the end of the day, what I'm wondering is if the mainstream pro-choice crowd really wants the ability to end a pregnancy of a viable baby simply because a woman has a right to control her body.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 6, 2019 20:58:18 GMT -8
VA Gov. Ralph Northam's defense of infanticide has set off a chain of events that has left Virginia's top three Democrats in shambles:
1. Northam's 1984 blackface/KKK photo
2. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax credibly accused of rape in 2004
3. Atty. Gen. Mark Herring admits to using blackface as a student in 1980.
What a mess.....and well-deserved.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 25, 2019 20:52:33 GMT -8
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 26, 2019 8:28:28 GMT -8
I will just put this out there and we can discuss if desired or needed... At the moment of conception, REGARDLESS of how that conception came about, a living human being is created. It is important to understand this new being is BOTH - Living (it is not dead, inanimate, or inert... it is alive); and
- Human (it is not a giraffe, or a lopizard, or a mouse), it is human
[/ul] I realize this newly created child does not currently have Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but in my opinion, it should, as should all living human beings. “But what about rape or incest?” Like I said above, “regardless of how the conception came about.” A child should not face the death penalty because its biological father is a rapist. Further, in states who record reasons given for abortions, “rape” is listed in .03% (yes, 1/3 of 1%) of cases. So this is not as big a sticking point as the left zealots want you to believe. “But what about the life of the mother?” Also, statistically rare, but in almost all cases, the pregnancy threatening the life (not the health or “mental” health) of the mother is known before conception. I do not believe the child should face the death penalty because their biological host cannot make good decisions about spreading her legs. The vast, statistically superior numbers of abortions (over 97% according to those states who track reasons given for abortions) are sought because of the insecurity or vanity of the biological host. They don’t want [someone in their life to know], they can’t afford a child, they don’t want to lose their [perky breasts/body/other], or other, similarly weak, and selfish excuse... virtually all of which excuses are known before spreading her legs. There is no (zero, zip, nada) sane, rational reason any society should condone abortion, at all |
|
