davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 26, 2019 9:27:11 GMT -8
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. - Thomas Jefferson I think Sasses bill is unnecessary. Although I have not read the full bill, the summaries Ivenread suggest all it really does is add penalties for those who don’t act to save the life of a child who survives an abortion attempt. But I believe those penalties already exist, inherent in the Abortion Survivors Protection Act That Bush signed into law. Granted, that previous law doesn’t specify penalties, but at the point a child survives an abortion attempt, it is undeniably, irrevocably a human being, with all the rights of all of us. Anyone who then kills or harms that child, including willful neglect, IS guilty of a felony: At least involuntary (but probably voluntary) manslaughter, if not murder... which crimes already have legal remedies. now, if Sasse’s bill had more in it, beyond a repeat of Bush’s bill and legal penalties for violation, then I will stand corrected. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Feb 26, 2019 9:57:59 GMT -8
I think we have to put morality aside on this issue, and I believe you are doing so in the majority of your post. It seems you are suggesting an overturn of Roe v. Wade, and that's fine if you are. Just want to understand the end game of your arguments.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 26, 2019 12:50:46 GMT -8
I think we have to put morality aside on this issue, and I believe you are doing so in the majority of your post. It seems you are suggesting an overturn of Roe v. Wade, and that's fine if you are. Just want to understand the end game of your arguments. Good eye, Bick. Yes, that has been my position all along. In my mind, the Roe Court bought a bill of goods. To bifurcate a human child in utero into “human” (after being born) or “fetus” (before being born) was a red herring into which the court was all to willing (if not complicit) to buy. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,379
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 26, 2019 13:00:25 GMT -8
"All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont."
More than likely this is what this is really about...... put them on record as a tool for 2020.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Feb 26, 2019 17:50:24 GMT -8
I think we have to put morality aside on this issue, and I believe you are doing so in the majority of your post. It seems you are suggesting an overturn of Roe v. Wade, and that's fine if you are. Just want to understand the end game of your arguments. If I am correct in assuming that you believe people supporting this bill are doing so merely to undermine Rowe v Wade you are mistaken. If a child survives an abortion attempt and is alive outside the womb, no matter how it got there, that is an infant = human being with the same rights as any infant. To simply "make it comfortable" - enabling an inevitable demise - was a despicable Joseph Goebbels-like comment by that Virginia governor. Untold millions of dollars are spent trying to rescue premature infants not only because that is what the parents want, but because that infant has a right to a chance at life once it is born and is alive. Simply because the mother decides she doesn't want the infant doesn't mean that we leave it to die on a hillside like the Spartans of ancient Greece. There is an obvious and definable ethical difference between a 20-week-old fetus still in the womb and a 14-weeks premature baby struggling to survive once born. I can usually appreciate opposing perspectives on a given issue even when they differ quite a bit from mine, but this is shameful.........................Luca |
|
|
|
Post by coach on Feb 26, 2019 18:17:57 GMT -8
What is a shame is, liberals care more for the infants of illegal immigrants than baby's born alive. The democrats are pure evil
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Feb 26, 2019 18:24:35 GMT -8
I think we have to put morality aside on this issue, and I believe you are doing so in the majority of your post. It seems you are suggesting an overturn of Roe v. Wade, and that's fine if you are. Just want to understand the end game of your arguments. If I am correct in assuming that you believe people supporting this bill are doing so merely to undermine Rowe v Wade you are mistaken. If a child survives an abortion attempt and is alive outside the womb, no matter how it got there, that is an infant = human being with the same rights as any infant. To simply "make it comfortable" - enabling an inevitable demise - was a despicable Joseph Goebbels-like comment by that Virginia governor. Untold millions of dollars are spent trying to rescue premature infants not only because that is what the parents want, but because that infant has a right to a chance at life once it is born and is alive. Simply because the mother decides she doesn't want the infant doesn't mean that we leave it to die on a hillside like the Spartans of ancient Greece. There is an obvious and definable ethical difference between a 20-week-old fetus still in the womb and a 14-weeks premature baby struggling to survive once born. I can usually appreciate opposing perspectives on a given issue even when they differ quite a bit from mine, but this is shameful.........................Luca Luca, you are a Doctor, how in the hell is a Doctor that euthanizes...check that...murders a baby upholding their hypocritic oath? |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Feb 26, 2019 19:27:29 GMT -8
If I am correct in assuming that you believe people supporting this bill are doing so merely to undermine Rowe v Wade you are mistaken. Nope. Was wondering what Dave's endgame was. You and I already touched on this issue, and I've weighed in on this bill. I believe there is movement to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I thought figuring what an acceptable abortion law would work might be fun to discuss here. I've got to claim ignorance on the key points of that law. Might want to start with which scenarios would be acceptable for abortion. I'll go with: Non-viable baby - assumes he/she would not survive on its own Rape - this was not the choice of the woman. Forcing her to carry that child to term would be a constant reminder of her being violated. Endangerment of mother - health, not the mental stuff. I don't know if either non-viability or health of mother issues would suddenly be detected in the 3rd trimester. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 26, 2019 21:34:45 GMT -8
The moral issue of the protection of unborn life is one thing (which I support unreservedly); the constitutional issue of Roe v. Wade is another. Roe should be overturned simply because of its weakness from a legal/constitutional standpoint. Then the issue would rightfully return to the states to make their own individual laws and regulations that better reflect the democratic process. The SCOTUS decision in Roe short-circuited the democratic process and has largely kept the issue of abortion out of the hands of the people ever since. That should change. Let the 10th Amendment live! (no pun intended)
On a positive and ironic note, it seems that some of the recent Democratic overreach on late-term abortion has actually moved the needle in the pro-life direction among the country at-large:
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 27, 2019 6:58:47 GMT -8
If I am correct in assuming that you believe people supporting this bill are doing so merely to undermine Rowe v Wade you are mistaken. Nope. Was wondering what Dave's endgame was. You and I already touched on this issue, and I've weighed in on this bill. I believe there is movement to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I thought figuring what an acceptable abortion law would work might be fun to discuss here. I've got to claim ignorance on the key points of that law. Might want to start with which scenarios would be acceptable for abortion. I'll go with: Non-viable baby - assumes he/she would not survive on its own Rape - this was not the choice of the woman. Forcing her to carry that child to term would be a constant reminder of her being violated. Endangerment of mother - health, not the mental stuff. I don't know if either non-viability or health of mother issues would suddenly be detected in the 3rd trimester. First, I should point out, while I advocate for Roe v. Wade to be reviewed and adjusted (if not overturned), I do not realistically believe it will ever happen. now, I want to discuss Bicks exceptions: - A non-viable baby: we were forced to consider this one when our Daughter was discovered to be triploidy, at 3 months into the pregnancy. Triploidy means she had an extra X Chromosome and if she wasn’t dead already, she soon would be. The thought of aborting her was excruciating but we did, in the end, decide to allow it and our staunch Catholic Ob/Gyn performed it. So, this might be “the” allowable exception in my mind.
- Rape: I know it sounds cold and I absolutely understand Bicks concern. However, two things come to mind: First, as I said above, the sperm donor is the criminal here. Yes the mother is a victim, but so is the resulting child. I cannot see forcing the child to pay with their life for the crime of the father. Second, I agree the mother carrying the child to term is a continuing reminder, but people are victims every day and killing the child, while it might provide some relief, that relief is temporary. Life without feeling objectified and violated is not a guarantee. Victims of other crimes, and of disabilities and diseases have to live with their daily reminders. If I believe life begins at conception, it is a living human being, regardless of how it was conceived.
- Endangerment of the Mother: Here, I need some clarification. Bick already explained “Health, not mental...” and I agree with that, but even this is too loose and is way too clear a path to abuse. That is why I defined “health of the mother” as only “life” of the mother. But, against my conservative ideals, this might be where I see the court getting involved. (I know, made me cringe too). IF it was truly NOT known that a full term pregnancy would threaten the life (meaning she might die) of the mother, then, we have a situation where we can save one or the other, but not both. Maybe not a court, per se, but if the child’s rights are protected as the decision is being made which life to sacrifice for the other, RECOGNIZING, as I do the remarkable success today’s medical professionals have had helping premies of very few weeks survive outside the womb, then I can consider this final solution.
My perspective revolves around “life begins at conception.”
It it is my further observation that the two sides of the question, Pro Life and Pro “choice” argue from different platforms: Pro life believes “life” is more important, Pro “choice” believes “liberty” is more important. The two sides will never agree until (unless) they argue from the same platform... which I believe we (Pro life) CAN do, and Pro”choice” cannot.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Feb 27, 2019 8:48:18 GMT -8
One more consideration in this discussion should be the care for the child / child welfare payments to single mothers, and the societal troubles that go with fatherless kids. We should also discuss the consequences of Roe v. Wade as it related to abortions / unsafe and otherwise. It seems many of our issues are discussed in a vacuum. Maybe better to tackle an outline of a more comprehensive approach to the entire matter?
Expected results of the plan
Acceptable abortion conditions
Responsibility for raising child
Support for children
Ease of adoption
Penalties for non-compliance
FWIW, I was casually active in the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption back in my Wendy's days. It seems there continues to be a much under-served demand for adoptive babies.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 27, 2019 9:55:13 GMT -8
My perspective revolves around “life begins at conception.”
Yes, it does, but that truism avoids what I think is a critically important point: the difference between "life" and "human being". "Life begins at conception" is true of every organism that reproduces sexually, whether it's a human being, a dog, a sea anemone or an apricot. And except for the sequence of its nucleotide pairs, a human zygote is hardly different than the zygotes of those other species. Days later, when it become a blastula and a gastrula, it would still be hard to make a convincing argument that it is a human being. I think if the debate is to be joined reasonably, and with a chance of winning, there has to be some agreement about the point at which that new life becomes a human being, with the all the rights attendant to that stature. Referring back to my ultrasound experiences, I think it's somewhere in the second trimester that fetuses begin to manifest the characteristics of a "person", but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. The one thing I know for a fact is that point is not reached after birth and after the mother and her doctor decide it's OK for the child to live. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 27, 2019 10:49:03 GMT -8
My perspective revolves around “life begins at conception.”
Yes, it does, but that truism avoids what I think is a critically important point: the difference between "life" and "human being". "Life begins at conception" is true of every organism that reproduces sexually, whether it's a human being, a dog, a sea anemone or an apricot. And except for the sequence of its nucleotide pairs, a human zygote is hardly different than the zygotes of those other species. Days later, when it become a blastula and a gastrula, it would still be hard to make a convincing argument that it is a human being. I think if the debate is to be joined reasonably, and with a chance of winning, there has to be some agreement about the point at which that new life becomes a human being, with the all the rights attendant to that stature. Referring back to my ultrasound experiences, I think it's somewhere in the second trimester that fetuses begin to manifest the characteristics of a "person", but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. The one thing I know for a fact is that point is not reached after birth and after the mother and her doctor decide it's OK for the child to live. Yes, understood and agreed. That single statement was not my main point: While my perspective does, indeed, revolve around this scientific fact, my point is, that “thing” that is conceived is both living and a human being. So far, hundreds of thousands of words (est.) have been used in an effort to go around my point. So far, no words have been able to defeat my point. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 27, 2019 11:12:11 GMT -8
With all due respect, Dave, then you are as intractable as the leftists on TOB who are also unwilling to give an inch. If both sides don't compromise a little, the conflict will never be resolved and the law must decide absolutely for one side or the other.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of human zygotes stored in labs as part of in vitro fertilization efforts. Are they human beings? If they are disposed of after a couple has become pregnant and given birth, are the disposers also guilty of murder?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Feb 27, 2019 13:16:33 GMT -8
To your point, it's important to understand the perspective of the woman whose choices we're attempting to regulate.
Back in the early 70's, women were pushing through for rights that I agree they should've had. It's important to be cognizant of that, and ensure those rights don't become marginalized.
I'm not suggesting 3rd term / post birth abortion does that.
|
|
