goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: 420seriouscat69 on January 23, 2019, 07:11:50 PM
-
Congrats, libs!
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/01/22/reproductive-health-act-new-york-legislature-gov-andrew-cuomo-roe-v-wade/amp/
-
https://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/roe-v-wade-state-legislature-1.26286007
-
Good for NY
-
Good for State’s rights!
-
eff those babies and their irresponsible parents! Kill, kill, kill!
-
Good for NY
:thumbs:
-
to preserve the health of the mother.
seems ethically sound.
-
:lol:
-
you don't think the health of the mother is a legitimate justification?
-
Yeah, you can't square the "it should be left up to the states" argument with opposing NY's law as a non-new-yorker.
That said, this is a direct result of Donald J. Trump.
-
I knew this thread would bring out the shitty DemonCraps.
-
With the change, New York's abortion laws are nearly as progressive as Alaska's!
-
you don't think the health of the mother is a legitimate justification?
wackycat, i was directing this question at you.
-
you don't think the health of the mother is a legitimate justification?
It’s the same as “Medical Marijuana” State. “Oh, you have anxiety and uncomfortable feelings at times? Let me jam this mother rough rider out so you feel better! Here’s your punch card for your next visit!”
-
By the way guys, there was only one heartbeat today! Phew! We all know how SYS feels about Americans reproducing, he feels it’s crowded, but plz let illegals in and come as they go. :confused:
-
Some states are considering measures like this to preempt what they see as the likely demise of Roe v. Wade under the new Supreme Court. I do not support the NY law, but I do support their right to pass it as much as I oppose Roe’s manufactured limitation on states to go the opposite way.
-
so you agree with the law, but you don't trust medical personnel to faithfully adhere to it?
-
If you abort a baby early on, I don’t like it, but you do you, but at 9 months? Come the eff on.
-
Some states are considering measures like this to preempt what they see as the likely demise of Roe v. Wade under the new Supreme Court. I do not support the NY law, but I do support their right to pass it as much as I oppose Roe’s manufactured limitation on states to go the opposite way.
Let me tell you a story about a hypothetical, unfortunate violinist that may change your mind . . .
-
If you abort a baby early on, I don’t like it, but you do you, but at 9 months? Come the eff on.
wait, so now you don't agree that the health of the mother is a legitimate justification?
-
Also Wacky, an abortion thread would have been a great way to breath life into Wacky's World. Wutchu doin, Terry?!
-
If you abort a baby early on, I don’t like it, but you do you, but at 9 months? Come the eff on.
wacky, as a future parent (hopefully) you should look at this thing a little closer before doing diarrhea posting all over the place
-
@Spracne None of these libtards would have ventured over there. They’re pretty confident they’re doing everything right these days. Just needed to out some losers that I knew would out themselves because they’re too rough ridin' lazy and cheap to make an effort not to make a baby these days.
-
If you abort a baby early on, I don’t like it, but you do you, but at 9 months? Come the eff on.
wacky, as a future parent (hopefully) you should look at this thing a little closer before doing diarrhea posting all over the place
I don’t like abortion. The Mrs and I paid a lot of $ to create one in our mid 30’s. Not trying to diarrhea a thread, just wanted to see how far some of the libs down here would take the abortion issue. Which from the look of things, is very far.
-
If you abort a baby early on, I don’t like it, but you do you, but at 9 months? Come the eff on.
wacky, as a future parent (hopefully) you should look at this thing a little closer before doing diarrhea posting all over the place
I don’t like abortion. The Mrs and I paid a lot of $ to create one in our mid 30’s. Not trying to diarrhea a thread, just wanted to see how far some of the libs down here would take the abortion issue. Which from the look of things, is very far.
yeah, you may want to read the thing again. it's for health of the mother reasons. like your wife is going to die if she tries to give birth. not your wife (or some teen, or whoever you're pissed at) decides she doesn't want the responsibility of raising a baby.
-
I mean, you either value the life of the mother more than the fetus or you don’t. For most people this is an easy choice.
You did catch the part where it was for protecting the mother’s health in high-risk situations, right?
-
I get it now, I don’t really believe that’s what they’re passing tho. I think it will be a loose law like medical marijuana. Find the right doc and they’ll hook you up. I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
-
adds a provision for abortions at any time if the baby would not survive the birth. Additionally, the act permits abortions at any point if it is necessary to protect the mother's life or health.
-
I get it now, I don’t really believe that’s what they’re passing tho. I think it will be a loose law like medical marijuana. Find the right doc and they’ll hook you up. I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Jesus, Wacky, think about what you're saying. If a woman lives in a state where abortion is legal and she keeps the child until labor is imminent, then it's pretty obvious she wants the kid. And if it gets to that point, there's not a single rational argument that isn't predicated on a life or death situation that would be able to dissuade her keeping the child. It's how we are wired biologically.
-
I think many of the sober voices in this thread are mischaracterizing the changes to the law, a bit.
-
Nevermind. I almost got got by fake news.
-
I get it now, I don’t really believe that’s what they’re passing tho. I think it will be a loose law like medical marijuana. Find the right doc and they’ll hook you up. I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Jesus, Wacky, think about what you're saying. If a woman lives in a state where abortion is legal and she keeps the child until labor is imminent, then it's pretty obvious she wants the kid. And if it gets to that point, there's not a single rational argument that isn't predicated on a life or death situation that would be able to dissuade her keeping the child. It's how we are wired biologically.
Let me introduce you to the term #DumpsterBaby
-
I guess there really are weirdos out there that thought that people were carrying babies to full term and then just deciding they "didn't want them" and getting a doctor to abort the baby, not just using this absurd scenario as a cynical rhetorical device.
-
I guess there really are weirdos out there that thought that people were carrying babies to full term and then just deciding they "didn't want them" and getting a doctor to abort the baby, not just using this absurd scenario as a cynical rhetorical device.
You don’t think this really happens? In New York of all places?
-
Jesus Wacky you can't be asking that as a serious question to KK.
-
Am I to believe that prior to this law doctors in NY were being forced to let mothers die in order to ensure their children lived?
-
“In New York of all places” says man from Eudora, KS
-
I get it now, I don’t really believe that’s what they’re passing tho. I think it will be a loose law like medical marijuana. Find the right doc and they’ll hook you up. I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Jesus, Wacky, think about what you're saying. If a woman lives in a state where abortion is legal and she keeps the child until labor is imminent, then it's pretty obvious she wants the kid. And if it gets to that point, there's not a single rational argument that isn't predicated on a life or death situation that would be able to dissuade her keeping the child. It's how we are wired biologically.
Let me introduce you to the term #DumpsterBaby
That's not even a remotely common occurance - it's a total 6- to 8-sigma event. It's in our mythos precisely because of how bonkers it is.
-
I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Man, you don't want to go down this road of eff everyone else because it hasn't happened to me. I wish you all the best but the fact you are both older than normal child years puts your risk of complication higher. I know in my heart of hearts everything will go well but man, just think about what you said here.
-
Jesus Wacky you can't be asking that as a serious question to KK.
Read it sober. Asking about NYC ppl. :facepalm:
-
I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Man, you don't want to go down this road of eff everyone else because it hasn't happened to me. I wish you all the best but the fact you are both older than normal child years puts your risk of complication higher. I know in my heart of hearts everything will go well but man, just think about what you said here.
You’re mumped up? :dunno:
-
Technically, NY prosecutors previously had the OPTION to prosecute doctors who performed late-term abortions necessary to protect the health of mothers. My guess is that section of the penal code was rarely if ever enforced. This change simply removes the discretionary mechanism.
-
I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Man, you don't want to go down this road of eff everyone else because it hasn't happened to me. I wish you all the best but the fact you are both older than normal child years puts your risk of complication higher. I know in my heart of hearts everything will go well but man, just think about what you said here.
You’re mumped up? :dunno:
Sigh. I hope you reflect someday on some of these rants you go on about serious stuff.
-
Technically, NY prosecutors previously had the OPTION to prosecute doctors who performed late-term abortions necessary to protect the health of mothers. My guess is that section of the penal code was rarely if ever enforced. This change simply removes the discretionary mechanism.
Imagine that.
-
Technically, NY prosecutors previously had the OPTION to prosecute doctors who performed late-term abortions necessary to protect the health of mothers. My guess is that section of the penal code was rarely if ever enforced. This change simply removes the discretionary mechanism.
So the law is about protecting doctors then I guess.
-
Technically, NY prosecutors previously had the OPTION to prosecute doctors who performed late-term abortions necessary to protect the health of mothers. My guess is that section of the penal code was rarely if ever enforced. This change simply removes the discretionary mechanism.
So the law is about protecting doctors then I guess.
Technically women could have been subject to the law, as well.
-
I get it now, I don’t really believe that’s what they’re passing tho. I think it will be a loose law like medical marijuana. Find the right doc and they’ll hook you up. I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Jesus, Wacky, think about what you're saying. If a woman lives in a state where abortion is legal and she keeps the child until labor is imminent, then it's pretty obvious she wants the kid. And if it gets to that point, there's not a single rational argument that isn't predicated on a life or death situation that would be able to dissuade her keeping the child. It's how we are wired biologically.
Let me introduce you to the term #DumpsterBaby
That's not even a remotely common occurance - it's a total 6- to 8-sigma event. It's in our mythos precisely because of how bonkers it is.
Ever heard of a song called, "Brenda's Got a Baby." :shakesfist:
-
I would obviously feel differently if my wife’s life was on the line, but I don’t trust that will be the case.
Man, you don't want to go down this road of eff everyone else because it hasn't happened to me. I wish you all the best but the fact you are both older than normal child years puts your risk of complication higher. I know in my heart of hearts everything will go well but man, just think about what you said here.
You’re mumped up? :dunno:
Sigh. I hope you reflect someday on some of these rants you go on about serious stuff.
you’re a single bachelor. You have no rough ridin' idea how this effects anyone. However, since you love inserting yourself into every discussion that has nothing to do with you or your current situation, let me tell you, having sex, which hopefully you get to do sometime soon in your life makes choices. I hope that when you eventually have the opportunity you take care of things either way.
-
Ha. Ok. You do you Wacky. Sorry I was the 20th person to comment on a thread you started and that sent you over the edge.
-
I’m good, bud. Heard a heart beat today. I think I’ll keep it!
-
I’m good, bud. Heard a heart beat today. I think I’ll keep it!
that's not your decision
-
I’m good, bud. Heard a heart beat today. I think I’ll keep it!
that's not your decision
Why you trynna trigger our dude?
-
i doubt that qualifies as a trigger. wacky didn't pull out, and biologically speaking, his part is done now.
-
I setup my life for this moment, amazing how the thrill is when you work towards a plan responsibly. You meant to say congrats, bud.
-
i doubt that qualifies as a trigger. wacky didn't pull out, and biologically speaking, his part is done now.
If you had premium, you would know the full story from Wacky’s World.
-
My rule of thumb is that city slicker doctors will always be willing to push the limits of abortion law by a couple of months. So, yeah, this law will absolutely lead to the wholesale slaughter of beautiful, smiling little babies. :frown:
-
At least you admit it.
-
Nevermind. I almost got got by fake news.
you gotta be on your feet out there
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Wacks, any more comments on how NY people are worse than other people?
-
Celebrating this law and lighting up the world trade center for it is just another chapter in the saga of who the dumber Cuomo brother is.
-
Celebrating this law and lighting up the world trade center for it is just another chapter in the saga of who the dumber Cuomo brother is.
Congrats!
-
Wacks, any more comments on how NY people are worse than other people?
Chum has lost his job feeding off this daily crap. Let’s take a brake: I land at 2 tomorrow.
-
Wacks, any more comments on how NY people are worse than other people?
Chum has badgerd on daily about conservatives and has made jokes about his previous admins. Of course I don’t like this, rooting for him no matter what.
-
My question about the "health of the mother" argument: What possible condition could there be for a mother that the only option for her well being is killing her near term baby? Does one exist? I understand the need for immediate delivery, but a C-Section can be performed in that event.
-
My question about the "health of the mother" argument: What possible condition could there be for a mother that the only option for her well being is killing her near term baby? Does one exist? I understand the need for immediate delivery, but a C-Section can be performed in that event.
Info was vague, but a contestant on the last ep of The Bachelor told the guy that her sister had cancer while pregnant and died giving birth.
Obvs, it was another no-bone episode.
-
Is it too late to abort this thread?
-
My question about the "health of the mother" argument: What possible condition could there be for a mother that the only option for her well being is killing her near term baby? Does one exist? I understand the need for immediate delivery, but a C-Section can be performed in that event.
Info was vague, but a contestant on the last ep of The Bachelor told the guy that her sister had cancer while pregnant and died giving birth.
Obvs, it was another no-bone episode.
Yeah but if you abort in the 3rd trimester you still have to give birth or have a C-Section. How would the baby being dead help?
-
Do people think it's common for a woman to change their mind at 8.5 months and then fake cancer to have an abortion?
-
I think what wacky is trying to say is that the term “health” is vague.
-
My question about the "health of the mother" argument: What possible condition could there be for a mother that the only option for her well being is killing her near term baby? Does one exist? I understand the need for immediate delivery, but a C-Section can be performed in that event.
Info was vague, but a contestant on the last ep of The Bachelor told the guy that her sister had cancer while pregnant and died giving birth.
Obvs, it was another no-bone episode.
Yeah but if you abort in the 3rd trimester you still have to give birth or have a C-Section. How would the baby being dead help?
Idk, but I will begrudgingly continue watching the show on rough ridin' west-coast delay and see if they clear that up.
-
My question about the "health of the mother" argument: What possible condition could there be for a mother that the only option for her well being is killing her near term baby? Does one exist? I understand the need for immediate delivery, but a C-Section can be performed in that event.
Info was vague, but a contestant on the last ep of The Bachelor told the guy that her sister had cancer while pregnant and died giving birth.
Obvs, it was another no-bone episode.
Yeah but if you abort in the 3rd trimester you still have to give birth or have a C-Section. How would the baby being dead help?
Idk, but I will begrudgingly continue watching the show on rough ridin' west-coast delay and see if they clear that up.
which contestant is it?
-
Do people think it's common for a woman to change their mind at 8.5 months and then fake cancer to have an abortion?
No I don't think it's common. But why then is there even an exception for cases in which the women's health is threatened? As far as I can tell there aren't any conditions that would require abortion in the 3rd trimester in order to preserve the health of the mother. All I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense.
Unless "women's health/well being" isn't solely referring to physical health but perhaps to emotional/psychological health as well?
-
My question about the "health of the mother" argument: What possible condition could there be for a mother that the only option for her well being is killing her near term baby? Does one exist? I understand the need for immediate delivery, but a C-Section can be performed in that event.
Info was vague, but a contestant on the last ep of The Bachelor told the guy that her sister had cancer while pregnant and died giving birth.
Obvs, it was another no-bone episode.
Yeah but if you abort in the 3rd trimester you still have to give birth or have a C-Section. How would the baby being dead help?
Idk, but I will begrudgingly continue watching the show on rough ridin' west-coast delay and see if they clear that up.
which contestant is it?
The one who had the 1-on-1 at the San Diego amusement park with allegedly sick kids. I think redhead-ish and relatively older?
-
Do people think it's common for a woman to change their mind at 8.5 months and then fake cancer to have an abortion?
No I don't think it's common. But why then is there even an exception for cases in which the women's health is threatened? As far as I can tell there aren't any conditions that would require abortion in the 3rd trimester in order to preserve the health of the mother. All I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense.
Unless "women's health/well being" isn't solely referring to physical health but perhaps to emotional/psychological health as well?
Yeah that’s what I was kind of getting at. It’s not currently illegal anywhere for doctors to treat mothers. I guess some are saying, “but if treating the mother puts the baby at risk (e.g., surgery, chemo, etc.) they could be prosecuted for a late term abortion if the baby dies.”
But the risk of that kind of prosecution is about as high as a transgender person walking into the “wrong” bathroom so they can molest children. It’s a fake problem in order to necessitate a “solution” that just so happens to further an agenda.
-
Do people think it's common for a woman to change their mind at 8.5 months and then fake cancer to have an abortion?
No I don't think it's common. But why then is there even an exception for cases in which the women's health is threatened? As far as I can tell there aren't any conditions that would require abortion in the 3rd trimester in order to preserve the health of the mother. All I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense.
Unless "women's health/well being" isn't solely referring to physical health but perhaps to emotional/psychological health as well?
Yeah that’s what I was kind of getting at. It’s not currently illegal anywhere for doctors to treat mothers. I guess some are saying, “but if treating the mother puts the baby at risk (e.g., surgery, chemo, etc.) they could be prosecuted for a late term abortion if the baby dies.”
But the risk of that kind of prosecution is about as high as a transgender person walking into the “wrong” bathroom so they can molest children. It’s a fake problem in order to necessitate a “solution” that just so happens to further an agenda.
That was my initial assumption
-
I think what wacky is trying to say is that the term “health” is vague.
Yeah, I mentioned that, but they weren't having any of it. Shocking stuff.
-
Honestly, i'd like to hear more from @sys on how he wants America to stop mass producing, but also wants open borders for all. Sounds contradictory.
-
Honestly, i'd like to hear more from @sys on how he wants America to stop mass producing, but also wants open borders for all. Sounds contradictory.
i'm not particularly concerned with the population of the united states, we have fairly stable demographics and now finally have a sub-replacement level birth rate. increasing the number of work visas available and making legal immigration (and emigration) easier would probably have a very small negative effect on the global rate of reproduction.
-
Do people think it's common for a woman to change their mind at 8.5 months and then fake cancer to have an abortion?
No I don't think it's common. But why then is there even an exception for cases in which the women's health is threatened? As far as I can tell there aren't any conditions that would require abortion in the 3rd trimester in order to preserve the health of the mother. All I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense.
Unless "women's health/well being" isn't solely referring to physical health but perhaps to emotional/psychological health as well?
Yeah that’s what I was kind of getting at. It’s not currently illegal anywhere for doctors to treat mothers. I guess some are saying, “but if treating the mother puts the baby at risk (e.g., surgery, chemo, etc.) they could be prosecuted for a late term abortion if the baby dies.”
But the risk of that kind of prosecution is about as high as a transgender person walking into the “wrong” bathroom so they can molest children. It’s a fake problem in order to necessitate a “solution” that just so happens to further an agenda.
There's nothing wrong with making the risk of that zero, imo.
-
Honestly, i'd like to hear more from @sys on how he wants America to stop mass producing, but also wants open borders for all. Sounds contradictory.
i'm not particularly concerned with the population of the united states, we have fairly stable demographics and now finally have a sub-replacement level birth rate. increasing the number of work visas available and making legal immigration (and emigration) easier would probably have a very small negative effect on the global rate of reproduction.
By negative effect, do you mean the rate increases or decreases?
-
decrease.
-
Yeah, I agree with that.
-
https://twitter.com/lilagracerose/status/1088498014837035009?s=21
-
there's like 3 places (clinics, not states) in the US that even do third trimester abortions. and even they will not do them without a real reason. see the movie After Tiller if you can.
-
there's like 3 places (clinics, not states) in the US that even do third trimester abortions. and even they will not do them without a real reason. see the movie After Tiller if you can.
I don't believe this at all.
-
there's like 3 places (clinics, not states) in the US that even do third trimester abortions. and even they will not do them without a real reason. see the movie After Tiller if you can.
I don't believe this at all.
The info I found in about 2 minutes of searching is that there are approximately 1700 abortion providers in the US and 11% of them provide abortions in the 3rd trimester. That would be 187 clinics. About 1.3% of abortions are in the 3rd trimester and with almost 1 million abortions per year in the US that would be 13,000 3rd trimester abortions per year.
-
finally some 1%'rs that conservatives can get mad at
-
It's weird to me that removing a non-viable fetus is considered an abortion. It makes the statistics harder to take seriously.
-
It's weird to me that removing a non-viable fetus is considered an abortion. It makes the statistics harder to take seriously.
Why is that weird? If everyone agreed it was viable, wouldn’t removing it just be called birth?
-
It's weird to me that removing a non-viable fetus is considered an abortion. It makes the statistics harder to take seriously.
Why is that weird? If everyone agreed it was viable, wouldn’t removing it just be called birth?
A non-viable fetus is either already dead or not going to be able to survive the birth. Agreement isn't really a thing that applies to the definition.
-
Ok I think I’m getting mixed up how you’re using that term. When a lot of people say “viable” they’re talking about the 20 week mark when a baby could survive outside of the womb. So an 18 week baby would be non-viable even if it’s perfectly healthy. For removing that kind of fetus I don’t know what else you could call it other than an abortion.
-
By the same token, there certainly is disagreement whether an 19 week vs 20 or 21 week fetus should be considered viable. Advances in modern medicine have moved that standard quite a bit.
-
Ok I think I’m getting mixed up how you’re using that term. When a lot of people say “viable” they’re talking about the 20 week mark when a baby could survive outside of the womb. So an 18 week baby would be non-viable even if it’s perfectly healthy. For removing that kind of fetus I don’t know what else you could call it other than an abortion.
The New York law specifically applies to non-viable fetuses past the 24 week mark, all the way up to 9 months. These are fetuses without a heartbeat or with severe medical problems that will kill them right after birth.
-
Abortion consequences should be left up to god.
-
Ok I think I’m getting mixed up how you’re using that term. When a lot of people say “viable” they’re talking about the 20 week mark when a baby could survive outside of the womb. So an 18 week baby would be non-viable even if it’s perfectly healthy. For removing that kind of fetus I don’t know what else you could call it other than an abortion.
The New York law specifically applies to non-viable fetuses past the 24 week mark, all the way up to 9 months. These are fetuses without a heartbeat or with severe medical problems that will kill them right after birth.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying it is literally impossible for the doctors to kill (or be responsible for the death of) any babies who are removed from the mother under this law. Then who does it protect?
-
Ok I think I’m getting mixed up how you’re using that term. When a lot of people say “viable” they’re talking about the 20 week mark when a baby could survive outside of the womb. So an 18 week baby would be non-viable even if it’s perfectly healthy. For removing that kind of fetus I don’t know what else you could call it other than an abortion.
The New York law specifically applies to non-viable fetuses past the 24 week mark, all the way up to 9 months. These are fetuses without a heartbeat or with severe medical problems that will kill them right after birth.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying it is literally impossible for the doctors to kill (or be responsible for the death of) any babies who are removed from the mother under this law. Then who does it protect?
It protects the doctors and mothers from prosecution.
-
For what? They could never prove a case that harm was caused to those babies.
-
For what? They could never prove a case that harm was caused to those babies.
For the abortion.
-
For what? They could never prove a case that harm was caused to those babies.
For the abortion.
I’m gonna need a better explanation than that. I quickly looked at the bill and it looks like the part you’re thinking of amends the definition of “homicide” which previously included “caus[ing] the death of ... an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks” If we’re just talking about already dead fetuses or fetuses that have zero chance of survival, it is impossible for the doctors to cause their death.
-
For what? They could never prove a case that harm was caused to those babies.
For the abortion.
I’m gonna need a better explanation than that. I quickly looked at the bill and it looks like the part you’re thinking of amends the definition of “homicide” which previously included “caus[ing] the death of ... an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks” If we’re just talking about already dead fetuses or fetuses that have zero chance of survival, it is impossible for the doctors to cause their death.
The law also applies to abortions to end pregnancies that are likely to harm or kill the mother.
-
Yeah, different part. That’s the one that expands abortion rights. (The health part, not the “kill the mother” one. Doctors have always been allowed to save women’s lives.)
-
How is it impossible for doctors to end the life of a living baby with no chance of survival?
-
Yeah, different part. That’s the one that expands abortion rights. (The health part, not the “kill the mother” one. Doctors have always been allowed to save women’s lives.)
Yeah. The first part wouldn't be necessary if we didn't count late term abortions of already dead babies as abortions. The second part wouldn't be necessary if half the country didn't want their government to put women in prison if they choose to get rid of a pregnancy rather than die.
-
How is it impossible for doctors to end the life of a living baby with no chance of survival?
They’re not causing the death. If you can be prosecuted for inducing labor in that case, why couldn’t any woman or doctor be prosecuted for homicide if a baby dies shortly after being born?
-
How is it impossible for doctors to end the life of a living baby with no chance of survival?
They’re not causing the death. If you can be prosecuted for inducing labor in that case, why couldn’t any woman or doctor be prosecuted for homicide if a baby dies shortly after being born?
They are causing the death, though. It's sort of like an assisted suicide.
-
Yeah, different part. That’s the one that expands abortion rights. (The health part, not the “kill the mother” one. Doctors have always been allowed to save women’s lives.)
Yeah. The first part wouldn't be necessary if we didn't count late term abortions of already dead babies as abortions. The second part wouldn't be necessary if half the country didn't want their government to put women in prison if they choose to get rid of a pregnancy rather than die.
None of the parts are necessary. For half the country wanting to imprison people over a law that has been on the books for decades(?), it seems to have had an impressively low prosecution rate.
-
How is it impossible for doctors to end the life of a living baby with no chance of survival?
They’re not causing the death. If you can be prosecuted for inducing labor in that case, why couldn’t any woman or doctor be prosecuted for homicide if a baby dies shortly after being born?
They are causing the death, though. It's sort of like an assisted suicide.
You think assisted suicide patients are non-viable?
-
Yeah, different part. That’s the one that expands abortion rights. (The health part, not the “kill the mother” one. Doctors have always been allowed to save women’s lives.)
Yeah. The first part wouldn't be necessary if we didn't count late term abortions of already dead babies as abortions. The second part wouldn't be necessary if half the country didn't want their government to put women in prison if they choose to get rid of a pregnancy rather than die.
None of the parts are necessary. For half the country wanting to imprison people over a law that has been on the books for decades(?), it seems to have had an impressively low prosecution rate.
Most of my facebook feed seems to be pretty pissed off about that low prosecution rate. If you would rather these people not be prosecuted, then why get upset about a law that says they won't be prosecuted?
-
How is it impossible for doctors to end the life of a living baby with no chance of survival?
They’re not causing the death. If you can be prosecuted for inducing labor in that case, why couldn’t any woman or doctor be prosecuted for homicide if a baby dies shortly after being born?
They are causing the death, though. It's sort of like an assisted suicide.
You think assisted suicide patients are non-viable?
They are terminally ill for the most part.
-
None of the parts are necessary. For half the country wanting to imprison people over a law that has been on the books for decades(?), it seems to have had an impressively low prosecution rate.
Most of my facebook feed seems to be pretty pissed off about that low prosecution rate. If you would rather these people not be prosecuted, then why get upset about a law that says they won't be prosecuted?
That is not the actual premise of the new law. Just as reducing child molestation was not the actual premise of the bathroom bills.
If you are equating “non-viable” fetuses with terminally ill people, does that mean you would support killing a 38 week baby in utero if a doctor determines it wouldn’t survive longer than 5 years after birth? And if so what is the distinction between that and a baby born early at 35 weeks given the same diagnosis after birth?
And does the NY law now allow that? I’m not sure, but I am sure that the claimed justification regarding babies with a zero chance of survival is simply not true because it is impossible for prosecutors to bring that case under the old or new laws.
-
None of the parts are necessary. For half the country wanting to imprison people over a law that has been on the books for decades(?), it seems to have had an impressively low prosecution rate.
Most of my facebook feed seems to be pretty pissed off about that low prosecution rate. If you would rather these people not be prosecuted, then why get upset about a law that says they won't be prosecuted?
That is not the actual premise of the new law. Just as reducing child molestation was not the actual premise of the bathroom bills.
If you are equating “non-viable” fetuses with terminally ill people, does that mean you would support killing a 38 week baby in utero if a doctor determines it wouldn’t survive longer than 5 years after birth? And if so what is the distinction between that and a baby born early at 35 weeks given the same diagnosis after birth?
And does the NY law now allow that? I’m not sure, but I am sure that the claimed justification regarding babies with a zero chance of survival is simply not true because it is impossible for prosecutors to bring that case under the old or new laws.
Prosecutors choosing not to bring a case doesn't equate to it being impossible. The federal government is now prosecuting and getting convictions on people who leave water jugs in the desert for illegal immigrants so they won't die of thirst, when that had not been prosecuted in the past.
-
It’s impossible because the prosecutor would not be able to prove the doctor caused the death of the baby. If you’re after 24 weeks and the fetus is dead or has zero chance of survival, the doctor would only need to induce labor to have the same effect as an abortion (which typically involves inducing labor anyway).
-
It’s impossible because the prosecutor would not be able to prove the doctor caused the death of the baby. If you’re after 24 weeks and the fetus is dead or has zero chance of survival, the doctor would only need to induce labor to have the same effect as an abortion (which typically involves inducing labor anyway).
Inducing labor is the abortion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/walgreens-pharmacist-refuses-give-arizona-woman-drug-end-pregnancy-n886396?icid=related
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meijer-pharmacist-denies-michigan-woman-miscarriage-medication-citing-religious-beliefs-n921711
-
So it sounds like we need a bill protecting all doctors and mothers from homicide charges if a viable baby dies within 24 hours of being induced or having a c-section. I guess mothers should also be worried if it happened after naturally birth to, since in each of those scenarios it seems that birthing the baby lead to its death.
-
So it sounds like we need a bill protecting all doctors and mothers from homicide charges if a viable baby dies within 24 hours of being induced or having a c-section.
Maybe in your head it does.
-
Well there’s no law that says you can’t prosecute them. :dunno:
-
good lord, catastrophe.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dxpa0GjXgAUodHY.jpg)
-
True
-
That poor baby doesn't have a mother.
-
It also isn’t an infant lmao
-
https://twitter.com/vahousegop/status/1090346857925144576
-
Yeah that’s not gonna pass. Wild though.
-
Very psychotic, I agree.
-
People have lost their rough ridin' minds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkTopSKo1xs
-
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1090675061617508363
-
So after being asked about the bill he just describes what the current law is? Or am I to understand the current law prevents parents from taking their children off life support?
-
Here's a couple of women offering a different perspective.
https://twitter.com/djlavoie/status/1091338395853426688
-
That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).
Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.
-
That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).
Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.
Da fuq? That would be unconstitutional af.
-
I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.
-
I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.
Very few people think abortion is great, wacky. That is different from thinking it should be illegal.
-
That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).
Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.
Da fuq? That would be unconstitutional af.
I believe it, I just don’t know what the basis would be.
-
I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.
Very few people think abortion is great, wacky. That is different from thinking it should be illegal.
When they're getting to the point of 9 months, the party has lost their crap on the issue.
-
I honestly don't think all libs believe abortion is great, they're just too far invested now to backdown on the subject. Their party has went absolutely looney on the subject and they're too far invested to change their mind. Like dumbass 'pubs on gay marriage.
Very few people think abortion is great, wacky. That is different from thinking it should be illegal.
When they're getting to the point of 9 months, the party has lost their crap on the issue.
It's 9 months for nonviable babies. I can actually see and understand the argument for being against most abortions, but people who think a woman should be forced to carry a dead fetus to term are just mumped in the head, imo.
-
At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.
-
I think what wacky is trying to say is that the term “health” is vague.
-
At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.
Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.
-
At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.
Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.
First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.
Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?
-
Many municipalities have stopped prosecuting marijuana offences under a certain amount. I would still support a law actually making possession legal despite people not currently being charged.
-
That is nonsense. Roe didn’t establish a law, it only said what states could not regulate under the constitution (like banning all abortions).
Again, AFAIK New York has that right. Hell, I don’t think there is anything stopping the state from legalizing euthanasia of annoying toddlers at the parents’ discretion (I guess you could make a commerce clause argument?). I just think it’s a shitty law.
Da fuq? That would be unconstitutional af.
I believe it, I just don’t know what the basis would be.
No matter what you think about fundamental rights jurisprudence, if ever there was a fundamental right protected by the substantive element of 14th Amendment due process, surely the right not to be arbitrarily killed would be it. There, now I've tee'd up your next argument nicely!
-
At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.
Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.
First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.
Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?
Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.
-
Well yeah but who has a right to life is the whole debate so need not go there. (@spracne)
-
At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.
Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.
First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.
Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?
Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.
Do you believe that is all the law does?
-
Well yeah but who has a right to life is the whole debate so need not go there. (@spracne)
Oh come on...
-
At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.
Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.
First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.
Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?
Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.
Do you believe that is all the law does?
No, it also gives a woman whose life is put in danger by being pregnant the ability to choose to end the pregnancy.
-
At 9 months, she literally did carry it to term tho.
Yeah, there aren't people who are going to be getting abortions after going into labor. The fact that you believe that speaks volumes about your ability to believe propaganda, imo.
First of all, I was just responding to your comment that it is ok for the law to allow abortions for nonviable babies at 9 months because women shouldn’t be forced to carry such a baby to term. That makes no sense. It’s already been carried to term at that point.
Second, weren’t you in favor of the bill because you supported a 0% chance of doctors and mothers getting prosecuted under the old law despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening? And now you’re making an empirical argument here?
Yes, I think it is helpful that the law spells out that it's ok for a doctor to abort a dead fetus. The only reason I would be against a law like that is if I wanted these people to be prosecuted.
Do you believe that is all the law does?
No, it also gives a woman whose life is put in danger by being pregnant the ability to choose to end the pregnancy.
Aaaand?
-
It also allows for early term abortion, but from what I can tell, that is not the part of the law that is pissing people off. :dunno:
-
Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed in 3 cases: (1) the fetus is not viable, (2) to protect the mother’s life, and (3) to protect the mother’s health. You seem to be intentionally ignoring #3.
-
Abortion after 24 weeks is allowed in 3 cases: (1) the fetus is not viable, (2) to protect the mother’s life, and (3) to protect the mother’s health. You seem to be intentionally ignoring #3.
No, I support that, too. People shouldn't be forced to go through with something that will give them a debilitating health condition.
-
Did you just add “debilitating” in your endorsement because you’re uncomfortable using the actual text of the bill?
-
Did you just add “debilitating” in your endorsement because you’re uncomfortable using the actual text of the bill?
I just have a hard time imagining what sort of health conditions you are worried will make women feel like they need an abortion that aren't debilitating.
-
Giving birth is always a health risk, and postpartum depression is a serious health condition. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
-
Giving birth is always a health risk, and postpartum depression is a serious health condition. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
yes
-
Well then I suggest you read up on postpartum depression and uterine rupture.
-
Also this: https://usatoday.com/amp/546889002
-
That is thousands out of millions, catastrophe. Also, medical issues that arise from time to time is not the same thing as having a known medical risk a particular person is susceptible to. Those risks are known to the mother well in advance, and I have a difficult time believing the mother would choose to end a pregnancy after the first 6 months due to those concerns. The New York law is written for people who want kids.
-
That is thousands out of millions, catastrophe. Also, medical issues that arise from time to time is not the same thing as having a known medical risk a particular person is susceptible to. Those risks are known to the mother well in advance, and I have a difficult time believing the mother would choose to end a pregnancy after the first 6 months due to those concerns. The New York law is written for people who want kids.
I think both sides of the aisle are going to agree that very few people want to have an abortion ever, and only the tiniest number will WANT to have an abortion in the third trimester.
The only issue I’m focused on is this: should that small number of people who WANT (not need) a third trimester abortion be allowed to get one? The NY law is vague enough that it is seems to allow that. Kind of like states with medical marijuana laws where anyone can get a prescription.
-
Although now I’m also pissed you seem so flippant about postpartum depression.
A recent article by Drs. Stewart and Vigod published in the New England Journal of Medicine explores postpartum depression, this potentially debilitating condition that affects between 6.5% and 12.9% of new mothers.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/postpartum-depression-worst-kept-secret-2017020811008
-
A little sympathy for women going through something that requires a late term action would be great ITT.
-
Everything ok today, Phil?
-
Everything ok today, Phil?
Excellent Friday waks! Just think this discussion is missing the key piece. Ain't nobody walking around pregnant for 8.75 months then like nope I'm out.
-
Lol. Is that why women have used hangers to fix the problem themselves before? Is that why some have thrown them in the dumpster? How would you know?
-
killing babies to own the pubs
-
To whom should the dignity of personhood be extended to? That is the key issue. Hard to have these debates* when there isn't agreement on that. The argument is often framed as one side arguing that human dignity is given to mother, and the other to baby. I personally don't see them in opposition to one another.
*boarder walls, immigration, gun issues, foreign war policy, etc.
-
FYI WC08 bud you gotta chill a bit ITT. You can't go full beems vs dax ku scholarship fund style on issues like this.
-
:lol: :thumbs:
-
When you’re talking late term abortion I think it’s really just as simple as who qualifies as a person. NY defines a person (for homicide purposes) as a human being who has been born and found alive. Most conservatives including myself find that as too arbitrary a dividing line between being a person and not a person.
-
Hangers were used because abortion was illegal. Dumpster babies are so rare that I'm not sure why you even bring it up. The mothers in those instances are obviously mentally ill and comparable to mothers that purposely drive their car into a lake
We are talking about a medical procedure here bud, try to stay on topic.
-
Lol. Is that why women have used hangers to fix the problem themselves before? Is that why some have thrown them in the dumpster? How would you know?
Using these family guy references isn't the best way to make a convincing point.
How would I know what? Chill out my man.
-
When you’re talking late term abortion I think it’s really just as simple as who qualifies as a person. NY defines a person (for homicide purposes) as a human being who has been born and found alive. Most conservatives including myself find that as too arbitrary a dividing line between being a person and not a person.
Yeah, I am a moderate and pro-life. But I’m not a clear white line pro-lifer. I think the exceptions for safety of mother or unviable pregnancy are important. My sister in law carried a non viable fetus to term knowing with 100% certainty a living child would not be born. That was about as torturous an experience as anything I can imagine someone going through. She did that because her religion said she should.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
When you’re talking late term abortion I think it’s really just as simple as who qualifies as a person. NY defines a person (for homicide purposes) as a human being who has been born and found alive. Most conservatives including myself find that as too arbitrary a dividing line between being a person and not a person.
Yeah, I am a moderate and pro-life. But I’m not a clear white line pro-lifer. I think the exceptions for safety of mother or unviable pregnancy are important. My sister in law carried a non viable fetus to term knowing with 100% certainty a living child would not be born. That was about as torturous an experience as anything I can imagine someone going through. She did that because her religion said she should.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:sdeek:
-
When you’re talking late term abortion I think it’s really just as simple as who qualifies as a person. NY defines a person (for homicide purposes) as a human being who has been born and found alive. Most conservatives including myself find that as too arbitrary a dividing line between being a person and not a person.
Yeah, I am a moderate and pro-life. But I’m not a clear white line pro-lifer. I think the exceptions for safety of mother or unviable pregnancy are important. My sister in law carried a non viable fetus to term knowing with 100% certainty a living child would not be born. That was about as torturous an experience as anything I can imagine someone going through. She did that because her religion said she should.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you think she would have used resources like those being talked about in NY? (assuming you ignore the whole religious stigma component of it)
-
I can’t speak for her. I certainly would have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It was one of those things I didn’t know how to talk about with her or my brother. I wasn’t going to make suggestions or anything like that. Or even ask them their plans. Just listened and tried to be supportive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I live in Texas and I have never heard of someone being forced to carry a miscarriage/stillbirth to term. There are people who still do either on religious grounds or just hoping for a miracle.
As far as potentially life threatening deformities I’m not sure what the rules are. I recently heard of someone who knew their child would be born with part of their intestines on the outside :sdeek: but apparently that is a very treatable condition and they were good to go like a week after the birth.
-
And that all is more directed to Trey’s question. Obviously I’m not speculating as to SD SIL’s situation.
-
it wasn't a miscarriage. My wife and I had a miscarriage and that process was absolutely horrible but that's a different topic. it was one of those genetic things they test for once you know you are pregnant. that's also a fun process, getting told about each of the horrific things that they are going to test for and then waiting for a week with that information in your brain before finding out the results. I don't remember what the name was but it was incredibly rare and one I hadn't heard of.
-
:frown: Sorry to hear, SD.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
:thumbs:
-
it was one of those genetic things they test for once you know you are pregnant. that's also a fun process, getting told about each of the horrific things that they are going to test for and then waiting for a week with that information in your brain before finding out the results.
Yeah we opted out of that testing for that reason.
-
*boarder walls
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d2/02/5c/d2025cab7a55984bab059603b128c166.jpg)
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Strongly disagree
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Every single day, doctors have to determine what constitutes an acceptable level of risk for every procedure that they perform on every patient. Late-term abortion is no different. Doctors simply have to assess, given the sum of medical factors involved, whether or not labor represents an undue risk to the mother. The only other voice that matters in this discussion is that of said mother.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Strongly disagree
If you have to be a certified expert on a subject in order to engage in valid discourse on that subject, then everyone needs to shut up about almost everything.
-
Even if you wanted to play the morality card because you believe that abortion is murder, then think of late-term abortions that preserve the mothers well-being as self-defense. Not guilty, your honor.
-
Both Mengele as well as Schweitzer were physicians, and, presumably, experts.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Strongly disagree
If you have to be a certified expert on a subject in order to engage in valid discourse on that subject, then everyone needs to shut up about almost everything.
I'm certainly not calling for that
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Strongly disagree
If you have to be a certified expert on a subject in order to engage in valid discourse on that subject, then everyone needs to shut up about almost everything.
The totality of medical factors that comprise someone's "health" cannot be simply categorized for law. These things are immensely complex need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Every single day, doctors have to determine what constitutes an acceptable level of risk for every procedure that they perform on every patient. Late-term abortion is no different. Doctors simply have to assess, given the sum of medical factors involved, whether or not labor represents an undue risk to the mother. The only other voice that matters in this discussion is that of said mother.
I must be missing something about your point or the underlying purpose of the law.
My reading of it is that it permits late term abortions where necessary to protect the health of the mother. Stated in the negative, it prohibits only those late term abortions that are not necessary to protect the health of the mother.
I guess my confusion about your point could be cleared up if you gave me your impression about why we're prohibiting any late term abortions at all, regardless of the mother's health? Why should a statute prevent a mother from deciding just before birth that she wants an abortion for no reason at all?
-
Both Mengele as well as Schweitzer were physicians, and, presumably, experts.
Would you posit that they both upheld the Hippocratic oath? Go back to your hayfield.
-
Both Mengele as well as Schweitzer were physicians, and, presumably, experts.
Would you posit that they both upheld the Hippocratic oath? Go back to your hayfield.
Well, one was certainly more upholding than the other. Are you sure you're not overdue for a visit to your own hayfield?
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Every single day, doctors have to determine what constitutes an acceptable level of risk for every procedure that they perform on every patient. Late-term abortion is no different. Doctors simply have to assess, given the sum of medical factors involved, whether or not labor represents an undue risk to the mother. The only other voice that matters in this discussion is that of said mother.
I must be missing something about your point or the underlying purpose of the law.
My reading of it is that it permits late term abortions where necessary to protect the health of the mother. Stated in the negative, it prohibits only those late term abortions that are not necessary to protect the health of the mother.
I guess my confusion about your point could be cleared up if you gave me your impression about why we're prohibiting any late term abortions at all, regardless of the mother's health? Why should a statute prevent a mother from deciding just before birth that she wants an abortion for no reason at all?
That's not what's on the table. The new NY law only permits abortion after 24 weeks if the mother's health is threatened by either the pregnancy itself or the labor process. This whole "walk up and get an abortion the day before your due date because you changed your mind" thing isn't permitted under this law.
-
Why are we arguing about this? The last time anyone changed their mind on abortion was like 1994
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Every single day, doctors have to determine what constitutes an acceptable level of risk for every procedure that they perform on every patient. Late-term abortion is no different. Doctors simply have to assess, given the sum of medical factors involved, whether or not labor represents an undue risk to the mother. The only other voice that matters in this discussion is that of said mother.
Every single day, doctors also get sued for malpractice for doing a shitty job of balancing those factors. Most of the time it’s for problems that can be fixed, but when you’re talking about intentionally ending a life the stakes are pretty damn high. Not saying the vast majority isn’t capable of doing it, but how many mistakes are we willing to tolerate when the consequence is a dead child that should be alive.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Every single day, doctors have to determine what constitutes an acceptable level of risk for every procedure that they perform on every patient. Late-term abortion is no different. Doctors simply have to assess, given the sum of medical factors involved, whether or not labor represents an undue risk to the mother. The only other voice that matters in this discussion is that of said mother.
I must be missing something about your point or the underlying purpose of the law.
My reading of it is that it permits late term abortions where necessary to protect the health of the mother. Stated in the negative, it prohibits only those late term abortions that are not necessary to protect the health of the mother.
I guess my confusion about your point could be cleared up if you gave me your impression about why we're prohibiting any late term abortions at all, regardless of the mother's health? Why should a statute prevent a mother from deciding just before birth that she wants an abortion for no reason at all?
That's not what's on the table. The new NY law only permits abortion after 24 weeks if the mother's health is threatened by either the pregnancy itself or the labor process. This whole "walk up and get an abortion the day before your due date because you changed your mind" thing isn't permitted under this law.
Of course. I asked because I think we're disagreeing about an implicit but fundamental purpose of the law.
The law offers a condition upon which doctors can abort late term fetuses, effectively stating the following (paraphrasing so forgive me if i'm not using precise terms): "We only allow those late term abortions that are necessary to protect the health of the mother." Implicitly, the law says we can abort some late term fetuses, but not all: we can only abort where mom's health is an issue. Stated differently, some late term fetuses have to be born. Where mom's health is not an issue, her late term fetus must be born. Why? Because those are the rules we decided to impose.
It seems logical to me that the "health" condition exists because, implicitly, we, as a society - experts and non-experts alike - have decided that we don't want doctors performing late term abortions in every single instance the mother desires. If society was OK with doctors performing abortions in every instance, then what's he point of the "health of the mother" condition? We'd just write a law that allows late term abortions full stop. If we wanted to give doctors complete discretion about when to perform abortions (at the mother's will), we ought to have just given them that -- we didn't need any health condition in the first place. Instead we imposed a standard that doctors must follow.
Now, if the standard set by society is too vague for doctors to possibly interpret and carry out properly and consistently, then I think there's an obvious and legitimate problem with the standard which ought to be addressed.
I don't think discussing or understanding any of the above concepts requires anyone to attend a science class.
-
How's this for a novel concept - how about we let medical professionals determine what constitutes "the health of the mother" instead of politicians? This country's growing disdain of expertise is very concerning.
Because "the health of the mother" is a (likely intentionally) vague standard which leaves a lot of room for subjectivity/personal beliefs/politics. Debating the impact of such a vague standard on an important morality/rights issue should not require an MD.
Every single day, doctors have to determine what constitutes an acceptable level of risk for every procedure that they perform on every patient. Late-term abortion is no different. Doctors simply have to assess, given the sum of medical factors involved, whether or not labor represents an undue risk to the mother. The only other voice that matters in this discussion is that of said mother.
Every single day, doctors also get sued for malpractice for doing a shitty job of balancing those factors. Most of the time it’s for problems that can be fixed, but when you’re talking about intentionally ending a life the stakes are pretty damn high. Not saying the vast majority isn’t capable of doing it, but how many mistakes are we willing to tolerate when the consequence is a dead child that should be alive.
You're helping make the point. Even doctors get it wrong from time to time, so what chance does a politician have to improve upon that?
-
By limiting the types of circumstances under which the doctors can legally kill babies.
I don’t understand your point unless your argument is that abortion should be allowed any time a dr and mother agree to do it. I understand that is a valid position to take, but it is much more extreme than any state law I am aware of.
-
By limiting the types of circumstances under which the doctors can legally kill babies.
That's exactly what the law does bud, glad everyone could get this worked out
-
By limiting the types of circumstances under which the doctors can kill babies.
Once again, with all the pre-existing conditions and other factors that go into to determining what the "health" of an individual during pregnancy, I don't believe that a policy-mandated static threshold that is determined a priori can properly assess risk factors across a non-uniform population. Just my two cents.
-
By limiting the types of circumstances under which the doctors can legally kill babies.
That's exactly what the law does bud, glad everyone could get this worked out
Yes. Per Dlew’s post it appears both sides agree there should be limitations in place. Some are just disagreeing on whether the limitations in this bill are sufficient to protect the interests of mother and child.
-
By limiting the types of circumstances under which the doctors can legally kill babies.
I don’t understand your point unless your argument is that abortion should be allowed any time a dr and mother agree to do it. I understand that is a valid position to take, but it is much more extreme than any state law I am aware of.
My argument is that abortion should be legal under any circumstances wherein a panel of medical professionals has assessed that the pregnancy/labor poses an undue risk to the health of the mother. Ultimately, it should be the mother's decision, but if she proceeds with a risky pregnancy and her life becomes endangered, the doctor should step in to save the life of the mother over that of the would-be child when necessary.
-
I think that the main thing that some people are arguing about is that the term "health of the mother" is too vague and it needs to be classified by politicians and I'm saying that that's bullshit because it should be classified by doctors on a pregnancy-by-pregnancy basis.
-
By limiting the types of circumstances under which the doctors can kill babies.
Once again, with all the pre-existing conditions and other factors that go into to determining what the "health" of an individual during pregnancy, I don't believe that a policy-mandated static threshold that is determined a priori can properly assess risk factors across a non-uniform population. Just my two cents.
And that’s a fair position to take. Again, though, for those who view a viable, fully formed and functioning (but unborn) human being as a person, the provision is problematic because it does not account at all for the interests of the child. There is only one “patient” in the bill.
In either case, most people agree that an abortion necessary to save a mother’s life is a sad but appropriate measure if the mother wants to do it. But what if a doctor determines aborting the baby would add 2 years to the mother’s life? Seems totally appropriate under the bill but kind of jacked up to justify ending the life of a baby over.
-
So what I’m saying is it’s not an issue of the doctors getting it wrong about what makes the mother healthier. It’s to what extent we are ok with justifying abortions in order to improve that health. This bill places no limit on it.
-
To be clear, I understand that under existing SCOTUS caselaw, doctors are permitted/required to make value judgments on the term "health."
I just think it's lousy and would support a decision that required better defined standards or even no standards at all.
-
Yes Or No:
-40% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.
-80% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.
-10% chance of death.
-100% chance of not being able to conceive again.
-100% chance the fetus does not survive birth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yes Or No:
-40% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.
-80% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.
-10% chance of death.
-100% chance of not being able to conceive again.
-100% chance the fetus does not survive birth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-mother requires medical treatment for a condition. That condition will shorten her life if not treated. Treatment ends the pregnancy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yes to all of those, steve dave.
-
Y'all are way too up in other people's business. You want policymakers to provide additional guidance that doctors must follow when treating their patients? Would just lead to more doctor shopping, if it had any effectiveness whatsoever. The law is clear: the government cannot ban abortions when necessary to protect the health of the mother. Probably not too difficult to find an abortion doctor who will be willing to make that determination, given that they are abortion doctors. You really want to add another intrusive layer of bureaucracy into private medical decisions? I don't like that one bit.
-
Yes Or No:
-40% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.
-80% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.
-10% chance of death.
-100% chance of not being able to conceive again.
-100% chance the fetus does not survive birth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My personal opinions on the issue aside, I think any/all of those would be proper standards.
I just think it's a bad legislative practice to (1) impose a vague standard and (2) cede virtually complete discretion on that vague standard.
-
Y'all are way too up in other people's business. You want policymakers to provide additional guidance that doctors must follow when treating their patients? Would just lead to more doctor shopping, if it had any effectiveness whatsoever. The law is clear: the government cannot ban abortions when necessary to protect the health of the mother. Probably not too difficult to find an abortion doctor who will be willing to make that determination, given that they are abortion doctors. You really want to add another intrusive layer of bureaucracy into private medical decisions? I don't like that one bit.
Conceptually, I'm perfectly fine giving doctors complete authority to make medical determinations. But then let's do away with any (in my view) pretextual "health" standard.
-
Y'all are way too up in other people's business. You want policymakers to provide additional guidance that doctors must follow when treating their patients? Would just lead to more doctor shopping, if it had any effectiveness whatsoever. The law is clear: the government cannot ban abortions when necessary to protect the health of the mother. Probably not too difficult to find an abortion doctor who will be willing to make that determination, given that they are abortion doctors. You really want to add another intrusive layer of bureaucracy into private medical decisions? I don't like that one bit.
Conceptually, I'm perfectly fine giving doctors complete authority to make medical determinations. But then let's do away with any (in my view) pretextual "health" standard.
The language in the NY law merely tracks the constitutional jurisprudence. That is the language in Roe/Casey/Whole Women's Health, etc.
-
Y'all are way too up in other people's business. You want policymakers to provide additional guidance that doctors must follow when treating their patients? Would just lead to more doctor shopping, if it had any effectiveness whatsoever. The law is clear: the government cannot ban abortions when necessary to protect the health of the mother. Probably not too difficult to find an abortion doctor who will be willing to make that determination, given that they are abortion doctors. You really want to add another intrusive layer of bureaucracy into private medical decisions? I don't like that one bit.
Conceptually, I'm perfectly fine giving doctors complete authority to make medical determinations. But then let's do away with any (in my view) pretextual "health" standard.
The language in the NY law merely tracks the constitutional jurisprudence. That is the language in Roe/Casey/Whole Women's Health, etc.
To be clear, I understand that under existing SCOTUS caselaw, doctors are permitted/required to make value judgments on the term "health."
I just think it's lousy and would support a decision that required better defined standards or even no standards at all.
-
I think you're crazy, and the Court would never dare to try.
-
I actually think if a state passed such a law, the Court would strike it down, based on the privacy interests developed by Griswold and its progeny, which collectively were the precursors to Roe.
-
I think you're crazy, and the Court would never dare to try.
I don't think it's crazy at all. The Court routinely strikes down impermissibly vague laws, which, from a legal perspective, is my main issue. I understand it would require overruling at least parts of prior decisions.
-
I think you're crazy, and the Court would never dare to try.
I don't think it's crazy at all. The Court routinely strikes down impermissibly vague laws. Which, from a legal perspective, is my main issue.
The only way they could do that would be to overturn their previous decisions, since that is the standard announced by the Court.
-
I think you're crazy, and the Court would never dare to try.
I don't think it's crazy at all. The Court routinely strikes down impermissibly vague laws. Which, from a legal perspective, is my main issue.
The only way they could do that would be to overturn their previous decisions, since that is the standard announced by the Court.
I edited my post acknowledge that it would require overruling parts of prior decisions.
-
Y'all are way too up in other people's business.
that's like, all of political debate
-
SCOTUS isn't going to put on their Dr. hats and try to define some sort of medical protocol. Lol.
-
100% chance of fetal death to me is the same as non-viable. Idk if that exists in the real world but would not consider delivering a dead child to be an abortion.
My biggest hang-up when you’re talking about late term abortions (when most babies are capable of surviving outside the mother) is would an early c-section or induced labor accomplish the same effects as an abortion as far as preserving the health of the mother? If so, I don’t think it should be up to the mother whether to abort or birth the child if the health risks are a wash. That’s primarily how balancing the interests of the child looks like to me.
Assuming abortion is the only way to prevent the health issues, I personally think any permanent disability (paralysis, unmanageable pain, etc.) that is likely to occur to the mother is an acceptable circumstance for a legal abortion.
-
I think you're crazy, and the Court would never dare to try.
I don't think it's crazy at all. The Court routinely strikes down impermissibly vague laws. Which, from a legal perspective, is my main issue.
The only way they could do that would be to overturn their previous decisions, since that is the standard announced by the Court.
They passed the law because they’re afraid the court is going to do exactly that.
-
SCOTUS isn't going to put on their Dr. hats and try to define some sort of medical protocol. Lol.
And you know what? I don't have any conceptual problem with them staying away from that.
But if that's the case, they should have just permitted abortions carte blanch, regardless of health. Instead, they split the baby (so to speak), nominally forbidding abortions in some circumstances, without actually doing so, by specifically requiring that "health" be "threatened" -- which is a standard so broad and discretionary that the requirement is effectively meaningless and completely unpredictable.
-
Yes Or No:
-40% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.
-80% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.
-10% chance of death.
-100% chance of not being able to conceive again.
-100% chance the fetus does not survive birth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My personal opinions on the issue aside, I think any/all of those would be proper standards.
I just think it's a bad legislative practice to (1) impose a vague standard and (2) cede virtually complete discretion on that vague standard.
So exactly what kind of box are you suggesting non-medical doctors draw around this? It’s as non-vague as it can be imo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yes Or No:
-40% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.
-80% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.
-10% chance of death.
-100% chance of not being able to conceive again.
-100% chance the fetus does not survive birth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My personal opinions on the issue aside, I think any/all of those would be proper standards.
I just think it's a bad legislative practice to (1) impose a vague standard and (2) cede virtually complete discretion on that vague standard.
So exactly what kind of box are you suggesting non-medical doctors draw around this? It’s as non-vague as it can be imo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not even sure what you mean. If you can't imagine a more specific standard than "threat to health" then i don't know what to tell you. Does the threat have to be "serious" or does any threat qualify? Does the threatened condition have to be permanent or can it be fleeting? How likely or remote does the threat have to be? Conceptually, it doesn't matter to me which way the legislature sides on any of the above questions, but more instruction from the law itself would go a long way in telling doctors, women seeking abortions, and the rest of us what the law actually is. For example, the Virginia bill that just passed replaced a previous one that required that the mother's life or health be "substantially and irredeemably" harmed. Still not exactly precise, but at least we know that the threat has to be serious and permanent.
As it stands though, we're left to kind of a guess what a particular physician's personal definition of "threat to health is" -- and when there's that much discretion on a standard that the doc is supposed to consider, it's pretty hard to ever be considered wrong either way. Which should be troubling to people on both sides of this issue for obvious reasons.
I just think that if laws are going to impose standards then they should be well-defined.
-
I’m asking what you think the box should be. You say you believe all items I listed should qualify and I’m trying to figure out what wouldn’t qualify and what you believe a judicial system and not a doctor should detail that as.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Like, you don’t have to but I think what I’d like is a list of items that would and wouldn’t qualify (in your opinion).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Like for instance, what if the risks sd listed before were changed to this?
Yes Or No:
-25% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.
-50% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.
-5% chance of death.
-65% chance of not being able to conceive again.
-90% chance the fetus does not survive birth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't think it's proper for politicians to decide that terminating a pregnancy because there is a 33% chance the mother suffers a stroke is illegal but not illegal when that risk rises to 50%, especially when these risks are only based on a doctors best estimate
-
Yeah a percentage cutoff is always gonna be arbitrary (and bad policy to require doctors to assign percentage risks when it’s just tied to subjective impressions anyway). Either base it off specific diagnostic codes or on whether a doctor determines certain severe conditions are likely to result without an abortion.
-
Yeah a percentage cutoff is always gonna be arbitrary (and bad policy to require doctors to assign percentage risks when it’s just tied to subjective impressions anyway). Either base it off specific diagnostic codes or on whether a doctor determines certain severe conditions are likely to result without an abortion.
So, you want a court (or congress) to promulgate an exclusive list of health risks that are deemed acceptable?
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.
-
I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out
-
I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out
Yes. The two issues are perfectly analogous. :rolleyes:
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.
How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.
-
I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out
Yes. The two issues are perfectly analogous. :rolleyes:
:thumbs:
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.
How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.
Is it still worth it for those children if their mothers die during labor?
-
I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out
Yes. The two issues are perfectly analogous. :rolleyes:
Coathangers and caravans of brown people scary stories
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.
How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.
Is it still worth it for those children if their mothers die during labor?
If they were just as likely to die from an abortion yeah I think so.
-
I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out
Yes. The two issues are perfectly analogous. :rolleyes:
Coathangers and caravans of brown people scary stories
If you keep making things up in your head, they must be true.
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.
How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.
Is it still worth it for those children if their mothers die during labor?
If they were just as likely to die from an abortion yeah I think so.
What you're saying flies in the face of established medical practice. The reason why abortions are performed in these circumstances (when doctors deem it necessary) is because doing so almost always re-establishes the status quo. That is, the woman comes away from her pregnancy pretty much the same as she was prior to it. Going through with a risky pregnancy where the mothers health is significantly impaired is a net negative outcome, because not only does she suffer medical consequences, but those consequences most likely have a negative impact on her ability to care for her child. Performing abortions in situations like this is the definition of caution.
Also, with the part of your post that I bolded up above, it's still up to the doctors discretion to determine if those two outcomes are equal. Which is what I've been arguing for this entire time. Ultimately, the doctor has to make a difficult judgement call and we shouldn't be trying to legislate that.
-
I think we're on the same page that the law is always going to have to allow for doctors to exercise their professional judgment. What I am saying is that most (all?) states' laws right now only require the doctor to consider the health of the mother (i.e., if she's above this risk line you can perform an abortion, below the line you can't). With the science we already have (which continues to get better), doctors are fully capable of exercising their judgment to take the health of the unborn child into account as well. They simply are being told to ignore that under the current laws, which is the main thing that I think should change.
And keep in mind so far I've just been focusing on late term abortion, which will still require some method of removing the baby after it is killed. There's really no complete going back to the status quo at that point.
I have my own opinions on abortions before viability, but that's more complicated to debate on a policy level since it ultimately comes down to a pure ethical question with no clearly defined societal norms to ground it in.
-
Has the infanticide supporting ultra racist VA gub resigned yet?
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
As long as you give doctors that discretion, I don't see the end result being much different than the status quo. Will the state actually intrude into these private medical decisions and prosecute doctors when the state disagrees with their medical judgment? Seems dicey.
-
Doctors are used to having their professional judgment questioned in court. I’m not all that worried about it.
-
Doctors are used to having their professional judgment questioned in court. I’m not all that worried about it.
Huge difference between a patient bringing a civil claim for malpractice (as I understand you to mean) and the state bringing a criminal charge. How would the state even find out? And what of privilege/confidentiality, if applicable?
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
As long as you give doctors that discretion, I don't see the end result being much different than the status quo. Will the state actually intrude into these private medical decisions and prosecute doctors when the state disagrees with their medical judgment? Seems dicey.
"Dlew, I'm ready to serve."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2Fphilkline.png&hash=ffecc2804dea9731f2ac3d1e1a06218e7244d932)
-
Doctors are used to having their professional judgment questioned in court. I’m not all that worried about it.
Huge difference between a patient bringing a civil claim for malpractice (as I understand you to mean) and the state bringing a criminal charge. How would the state even find out? And what of privilege/confidentiality, if applicable?
I mean how does the state find out about stuff like child abuse? And if you’re prosecuting a case for infanticide I don’t think anything related to the procedure is gonna be privileged. Again, the idea is to treat the viable, unborn child as a patient in the eyes of the law and applicable standards of professional responsibility.
-
What you're saying is that the health of the mother isn't as important as the health of the fetus. That's just wrong (and probably originates with some religious stuff on your side). Medically, if the pregnancy is significantly imperiling the health or life of the mother, it is no longer viewed as a child, but as a diseased organ.
-
Nah that was a SD straw man. You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route.
I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.
I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.
Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable. But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.
As long as you give doctors that discretion, I don't see the end result being much different than the status quo. Will the state actually intrude into these private medical decisions and prosecute doctors when the state disagrees with their medical judgment? Seems dicey.
That's exactly my point. If the state can't (or shouldn't) find that a doctor is abusing his discretion to the degree that he'd be in violation of the law, then what's the point of the "threat to health" requirement in the first place? Purely aspirational? We should just legislate what we're actually doing and let abortions be performed whenever for any reason.
FWIW, I don't think the doctors are required to have any certification or expertise in mental health -- correct me if i'm wrong. Do you find that troubling at all?
-
What you're saying is that the health of the mother isn't as important as the health of the fetus. That's just wrong (and probably originates with some religious stuff on your side).
You’re making that up. I’m saying the life of the child should be considered period. I’ve already said if abortion is the only way to prevent permanent disability to the mother it can be acceptable. That means long term health of mother trumps life of child even in my suggestion.
Medically, if the pregnancy is significantly imperiling the health or life of the mother, it is no longer viewed as a child, but as a diseased organ.
Yeah and I have a problem with that.
-
Purely aspirational?
governments make a lot of laws that have no, or almost no, practical enforcement mechanism, but serve to communicate expected behavior.
-
What you're saying is that the health of the mother isn't as important as the health of the fetus. That's just wrong (and probably originates with some religious stuff on your side).
You’re making that up. I’m saying the life of the child should be considered period. I’ve already said if abortion is the only way to prevent permanent disability to the mother it can be acceptable. That means long term health of mother trumps life of child even in my suggestion.
Medically, if the pregnancy is significantly imperiling the health or life of the mother, it is no longer viewed as a child, but as a diseased organ.
Yeah and I have a problem with that.
Part 1. I'm not making it up. By suggesting that the outcome of a viable fetus be considered at all, you're opening a debate into whose life is more important. Passing legislation that mandates that the well-being of the unborn child must be accounted for in every scenario would make every single decision that a doctor makes during a difficult pregnancy open to a malpractice suit. What a crap-mess that would be.
Part 2. How can you have a problem with that when you just stated above that you think the long-term health of the mother trumps the life of the child?
-
How is this thread still going
-
Part 1. I'm not making it up. By suggesting that the outcome of a viable fetus be considered at all, you're opening a debate into whose life is more important. Passing legislation that mandates that the well-being of the unborn child must be accounted for in every scenario would make every single decision that a doctor makes during a difficult pregnancy open to a malpractice suit. What a crap-mess that would be.
Yeah sure acknowledging the life of the child makes things more difficult for the doctor and potentially mother. I don’t really see anything wrong with that consequence.
I’m sure slave owners really endured some hardships after emancipation too but that’s just gonna happen when you change the system to acknowledge basic rights for a new class of people.
Part 2. How can you have a problem with that when you just stated above that you think the long-term health of the mother trumps the life of the child?
That’s not my personal belief, it’s the system that I think can be most effectively implemented.
-
I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out
Yes. The two issues are perfectly analogous. :rolleyes:
Coathangers and caravans of brown people scary stories
If you keep making things up in your head, they must be true.
You literally posted about coathangers ITT and Fox news is filled daily with brown people caravan horror stories. Both are made up fearmongering ideas that people actually believe to formulate their opinions on issues like abortions and walls. What exactly am I making up here? Rubes are rubes.
-
Phil, do you also find it crazy that the party that loves killing babies, also wants open borders and acts like they give af about families being separated when trying to illegally get in the US? Bizarre crap, right?
-
Phil, do you also find it crazy that the party that loves killing babies, also wants open borders and acts like they give af about families being separated when trying to illegally get in the US? Bizarre crap, right?
I would if any of this were true.
-
It doesn't seem crazy to me that some people actually care about other people.
-
We are witnessing full radicalization
-
Phil, do you also find it crazy that the party that loves killing babies, also wants open borders and acts like they give af about families being separated when trying to illegally get in the US? Bizarre crap, right?
I would if any of this were true.
:lol: You're high!
-
It doesn't seem crazy to me that some people actually care about other people.
If that were true, they wouldn't be in love with abortion.
-
Imagine framing this argument in your mind that people love abortions. Like oh man let's go.get preggers so we can go get ourselves one of them abortion procedures.
-
Phil, relax, it's Monday. I'm sorry you support a party that loves killing babies. That's on you, not me.
-
Phil, relax, it's Monday. I'm sorry you support a party that loves killing babies. That's on you, not me.
Blood thirsty libs survive off fetus blood I've heard
-
I'd be embarrassed to support a party like that. :frown:
-
I really doubt liberal people get abortions at a higher rate than conservatives. Is there any data out there that links party affiliation to abortion?
-
Something tells me Phil has a punch card for all of his abortions.
-
Something tells me Phil has a punch card for all of his abortions.
You are trying to hard here wacks. Only one person is getting out of their minds ITT. It's the one talking about dumpster babies.
-
:lol: You legit said there was no way ppl would take advantage of late term abortions and all I did was provide some examples that sent you into a fit of rage. T's and P's, friend.
-
How is this thread still going
Shhh. They've almost solved this in a way that pleases everyone.
-
:lol: You legit said there was no way ppl would take advantage of late term abortions and all I did was provide some examples that sent you into a fit of rage. T's and P's, friend.
Laughing at your outlandish thread is not a fit of rage. Sorry that didn't come across right.
I don't get into abortion talks because of how crazy some get about the topic. You may have noticed I never posted my opinion of the topic.
-
Still didn't stop you from throwing yourself into the conversation while being a pompous ass hat, like you do with every thread. It's all good, Phil.
-
Still didn't stop you from throwing yourself into the conversation while being a pompous ass hat, like you do with every thread. It's all good, Phil.
So weird this is how you laser focus on me and how you take my posts. This is gE right?
Hint, I don't take any of this site serious. Let's just have a good time bud!
-
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1095155778674143232
-
lmao
https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1103285194407198720?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190430/b93b6a2e5db59bfa07dce55ddbbcb2c0.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Classic Sparkle Queen.
-
I find it a bit odd that the Georgia and Alabama laws haven't been discussed on here yet. Pro-lifers, are these good or bad? Most of our discussions have been hypothetical laws. Now we have two examples. Thoughts?
-
I find it a bit odd that the Georgia and Alabama laws haven't been discussed on here yet. Pro-lifers, are these good or bad? Most of our discussions have been hypothetical laws. Now we have two examples. Thoughts?
As a mild pro-lifer my wife and I have already had a "discussion" about what's going on here, Mrs. Dax is more pro-life and we disagree. It's very very bad legislation IMO.
Also terrible treatment by the Pub majority of the Dem side of the aisle . . . just disgraceful. I hope Ivey vetoes.
-
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1128764949063401478
-
They say it’s designed for a court challenge, which is just idiotic, IMO. If your goal is to erode precedent stemming from Roe v. Wade you’re not gonna do it with something extreme out of the gate.
-
One thing I’m legitimately curious about though: people almost uniformly lump rape & incest together as exceptions to abortion laws. Rape is a pretty obvious one, but why is incest always right up there next to it? Is it only because there’s typically an element of rape in incest situations?
-
One thing I’m legitimately curious about though: people almost uniformly lump rape & incest together as exceptions to abortion laws. Rape is a pretty obvious one, but why is incest always right up there next to it? Is it only because there’s typically an element of rape in incest situations?
I would guess yes and certainly abuse that would be abhorrent.
-
I find it a bit odd that the Georgia and Alabama laws haven't been discussed on here yet. Pro-lifers, are these good or bad? Most of our discussions have been hypothetical laws. Now we have two examples. Thoughts?
:don'tcare:
Could go in the abortion thread, but it fits better here:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27479184/alabama-abortion-ban-clyde-chambliss/
And, lastly, there's this cat, Clyde Chambliss, the Pride of Prattville, who was one of the prime movers of the law, and who was asked whether in vitro fertilization clinics that discard embryos could be criminally liable under this new law. Of course not, Chambliss replies. After all, people Chambliss knows might need to use those.
"The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."
Game? Given away. This wasn't about protecting god's little embryos. It was about asserting control over women, taking away their physical autonomy in the most intimate fashion.
-
Georgia giving a clump of cells personhood to count in the census is pretty whaaaaaa?
-
Georgia giving a clump of cells personhood to count in the census is pretty whaaaaaa?
Quite possibly a new form of Liberrish ?
-
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1128726771942219781
-
Anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy resigns after report he asked lover to end pregnancy
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti-abortion-rep-tim-murphy-asked-mistress-terminate/story?id=50274843&cid=share_facebook_widget&fbclid=IwAR3-rj_7DvgDXh9fIegAhg9PGhiApUWWKxTe1zLtzJ-ZqC8mZZ-mWVVGxUw
-
That was two years ago.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
-
Missouri, come on down!
-
That was two years ago.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Sorry, I just saw that. Someone put it on Facebook and I thought it was recent.
-
"I think Alabama has gone too far" - Televangelist Grifter Pat Robertson
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/16/pat-robertson-says-alabama-abortion-law-has-gone-too-far/3690680002/
-
Missouri, come on down!
:facepalm:
They could at least pass sports gambling now too.
-
"I think Alabama has gone too far" - Televangelist Grifter Pat Robertson
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/16/pat-robertson-says-alabama-abortion-law-has-gone-too-far/3690680002/
:runaway: First sign of the apocalypse.
-
I find it a bit odd that the Georgia and Alabama laws haven't been discussed on here yet. Pro-lifers, are these good or bad? Most of our discussions have been hypothetical laws. Now we have two examples. Thoughts?
Regarding Missouri - I'm generally opposed to legislatures passing obviously unconstitutional laws. I think the term "medical emergency" is too vague, but vague language like that has passed muster in the past.
Ignoring those issues (which aren't small issues), and without having a ton of time to analyze Missouri's law in particular, I think it's good. There may be something I'm overlooking though.
-
I wish the fervent anti abortion folks would put as much effort into curbing the demand for abortions as they do trying to outlaw them.
-
I wish the fervent anti abortion folks would put as much effort into curbing the demand for abortions as they do trying to outlaw them.
Agreed.
-
Yes it’s v weird that some of the most vocal pro lifers are also very anti birth control and programs like WIC.
-
Only heart beats in the womb matter.
-
I'm looking forward to the "loaded" court confirming Roe V. Wade. Evangelical meltdown.
-
I'm looking forward to the "loaded" court confirming Roe V. Wade. Evangelical meltdown.
I try to tell people, this court is not overturning Roe. John Roberts will side with the libs, at the very least.
-
I wish the fervent anti abortion folks would put as much effort into curbing the demand for abortions as they do trying to outlaw them.
It’s almost as if their motivation lies as much or more with making sure people can’t have consequence-free sex as much as it does with curbing abortions. :horrorsurprise:
-
I wish the fervent anti abortion folks would put as much effort into curbing the demand for abortions as they do trying to outlaw them.
It’s almost as if their motivation lies as much or more with making sure people can’t have consequence-free sex as much as it does with curbing abortions. :horrorsurprise:
The Alabamians said as much:
And, lastly, there's this cat, Clyde Chambliss, the Pride of Prattville, who was one of the prime movers of the law, and who was asked whether in vitro fertilization clinics that discard embryos could be criminally liable under this new law. Of course not, Chambliss replies. After all, people Chambliss knows might need to use those.
"The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."
Game? Given away. This wasn't about protecting god's little embryos. It was about asserting control over women, taking away their physical autonomy in the most intimate fashion.
-
That individuals supporting one side make stupid arguments or have bad motives doesn't invalidate the broader position.
I don't think pro-abortion arguments are wholesale invalid just because some people submit the idiotic argument that I shouldn't comment because I can't get pregnant.
-
That is an idiotic argument
-
Speaking of idiot arguments
https://twitter.com/angiericono/status/1129447575730491392
-
That individuals supporting one side make stupid arguments or have bad motives doesn't invalidate the broader position.
I don't think pro-abortion arguments are wholesale invalid just because some people submit the idiotic argument that I shouldn't comment because I can't get pregnant.
Yeah, that is very stupid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
catastrophe
Yes it’s v weird that some of the most vocal pro lifers are also very anti birth control and programs like WIC.
Sex, Birth Control, and 'Bortions are only for Rich Whyte peepul, like Rickie Sanitarium and his wife.
Ask him, he'll tell you that they needed special dispensation because Gawd.
-
420seriouscat69
Killing babies at 9 months
Congrats, libs!
Stupid eff.
Intergalactic Aliens control the Moon and Donnie Jaun Drumpf rapes both his daughters every night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
-
https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1163858463694512129?s=20
-
Glad it worked out for her, sounds like she made the right decision!
-
:lol:
-
Glad it worked out for her, sounds like she made the right decision!
Glad safe and legal abortion was available to her :thumbs:
-
Anyone arguing that abortion availability doesn't benefit women's lives should have their heads examined.
-
:lol:
What’s funny? My comment was 100% genuine
-
Glad it worked out for her, sounds like she made the right decision!
Glad safe and legal abortion was available to her :thumbs:
Two too! :love: :cheers:
-
It’s a good mental exercise for people to convince themselves that a big decision they made in the past resulted in good things in their life.
-
It’s a good mental exercise for people to convince themselves that a big decision they made in the past resulted in good things in their life.
Beats someone thinking they know how better to live someone else's life.
-
lol
-
It’s a good mental exercise for people to convince themselves that a big decision they made in the past resulted in good things in their life.
Yeah, it's hard to find someone who has a big regret in life.
-
Whether an actor feels regret is a pretty arbitrary way to judge the morality of the action.
-
Yeah, the action was immoral. I wasn't trying to imply that it wasn't.
-
I think it was perfectly moral. Why don’t you think so? Let’s change some hearts and minds in the abortion thread today!
Lol, jk, that won’t happen. Let’s just yell past each other a bunch.
-
I think it was perfectly moral. Why don’t you think so? Let’s change some hearts and minds in the abortion thread today!
Lol, jk, that won’t happen. Let’s just yell past each other a bunch.
This blog would have maybe 2 posts per day if we didn’t do this everyday.
-
I think taking a human life is immoral. I'm also glad she's not in jail for it, wasting taxpayer dollars.
-
I think it was perfectly moral. Why don’t you think so? Let’s change some hearts and minds in the abortion thread today!
Lol, jk, that won’t happen. Let’s just yell past each other a bunch.
The morality of the action is debatable. My point is that I don't think there's anything noteworthy about her lack of regret (nor would there be if she felt regret).
-
It’s a good mental exercise for people to convince themselves that a big decision they made in the past resulted in good things in their life.
Yeah, it's hard to find someone who has a big regret in life.
Was my statement really that confusing? I’m saying people who are able to do what Milano is doing in that tweet are mentally better off for it.
-
It’s a good mental exercise for people to convince themselves that a big decision they made in the past resulted in good things in their life.
Beats someone thinking they know how better to live someone else's life.
Agreed.
-
She's the boss.
-
It’s a good mental exercise for people to convince themselves that a big decision they made in the past resulted in good things in their life.
Yeah, it's hard to find someone who has a big regret in life.
Was my statement really that confusing? I’m saying people who are able to do what Milano is doing in that tweet are mentally better off for it.
Yeah, I thought you were saying something different. I don't think it's particularly healthy to rationalize past decisions and always decide they resulted in good things.
-
Well of course there’s a limit, but when you’re talking about a decision that can’t be undone and will almost certainly not come up again, I think it’s very healthy. I think it’s something a therapist would probably encourage in her case.
-
I don't think it's particularly healthy to rationalize past decisions and always decide they resulted in good things.
while it can break down at times, if it wasn't healthier for us, net on net, our brains wouldn't be so good at doing it.
-
when you’re talking about a decision that can’t be undone and will almost certainly not come up again, I think it’s very healthy.
-
Agree with much of the above, but I think feelings of guilt/remorse (which are closely related to regret) have their purpose. Our brains are pretty good at that too.
-
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/22/a-new-poll-shows-what-really-interests-pro-lifers-controlling-women?amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2019%2Faug%2F22%2Fa-new-poll-shows-what-really-interests-pro-lifers-controlling-women
-
Compelling link
-
:lol:
-
Phil, relax, it's Monday. I'm sorry you support a party that loves killing babies. That's on you, not me.
Blood thirsty libs survive off fetus blood I've heard
actually it is the President it seems
-
pretty amazing turn of events