Killing babies at 9 months

[star seed 7]

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

[treysolid]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[treysolid]

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.

[treysolid]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[steve dave]

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

[steve dave]

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

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yes to all of those, steve dave.

[Spracne]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[DQ12]

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. 

[Spracne]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[Spracne]

I think you're crazy, and the Court would never dare to try.

[Spracne]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[Spracne]

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.

[DQ12]

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.

[Cartierfor3]

Y'all are way too up in other people's business.

that's like, all of political debate

[Spracne]

SCOTUS isn't going to put on their Dr. hats and try to define some sort of medical protocol. Lol.

[catastrophe]

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.

[catastrophe]

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.