|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 27 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 03:25 PoulsenB wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. The way I see it this isn't about letting women have frivolous late term abortions just because they feel a bit under the weather, it's for cases where not having an abortion would e.g. leave a woman crippled or with serious complications. Reading it like it's to allow for unlimited abortions is stupid. The words used in these statutes matter. The law doesn't say "serious complications" or "crippled." It says "health," and it leaves interpretation up to the health care provider.
That still relies on every single person (the doctor, healthcare provider, and mother) to all be (what I assume you would view as) monsters who decided to have the abortion late just to make people who believe in the kids' right to life mad to get this situation to occur.
|
On February 27 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 03:25 PoulsenB wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. The way I see it this isn't about letting women have frivolous late term abortions just because they feel a bit under the weather, it's for cases where not having an abortion would e.g. leave a woman crippled or with serious complications. Reading it like it's to allow for unlimited abortions is stupid. That words used in these statutes matter. The law doesn't say "serious complications" or "crippled." It says "health," and it leaves interpretation up to the health care provider.
This is the way of thinking that assumes from the get-go that everyone involved will act in bad faith and jump at the opportunity to kill some 6 or 7 month fetuses/babies just because there's a legal quirk they can exploit. I believe such an assumption to be wrong.
How about instead of arguing about hypothetical late term abortions we talk about how to make sure that:
a) people receive proper sexual education and
b) have access to affordable (free?) birth control
so that we can limit the number of unwanted pregnancies? Thus limiting the need for abortions?
|
This is what late-term abortions (stupid term) actually arise from. People who act like random women decide to nope their way out of a pregnancy after 8 or 9 months are hopelessly stupid. Why is this even an issue?
"Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention.
And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.html
|
Leaving interpretation up to the healthcare provider, a provider subject to numerous licensing and certification requirements, isn’t a bad thing.
|
I hear there are a lot of restrictions and requirements to being a doctor. Far more than becoming a politician. Or lawyer.
|
United States42259 Posts
I heard that doctors probably have better judgement of the medical needs of their patients than laymen who have no knowledge of the situation.
|
Heaven forbid we leave the judgement of what constitutes a health risk to a professional that is educated in people's health instead of an old white guy.
|
If anything, this shows the NY legislature can create laws that impose reasonable guidelines and restrictions on late term abortions. And those restrictions seem to not be enough for some pro-life advocates, who seem set on criminalizing the practice. The practice that is so traumatic for the people performing it that like one to four doctors in the entire nation will do it(it was four in 2013).
Apparently there is a documentary on the realities of late term abortions and the doctors who handle them, if you want your soul crushed.
|
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened.
|
United States42259 Posts
On February 27 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened.
And 9/11 contributed to the invasion of Iraq. A lot of people are morons.
|
On February 27 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened.
I think abortion is also just such a weird issue that the way you word things goes a long way.
Many people support abortion in a "yeah, but only if ____" way. The problem is that it is very hard to legislate the way people feel.
As an example, there are very, very few people who believe a woman should have to carry a rape-baby to term. But a lot of people see abortion as wrong in almost every single other circumstance. Someone may hate the idea of abortion in most cases, but 110% support it in the case of rape. In the same way, very, very few people support aborting at 8 or 9 months. But what if the woman's health is at risk? What kind of risk? If the woman's life is 100% at risk if she gives birth, that is very different than 5%. Some people will say a woman's life shouldn't ever be risked to give birth. So how do you rectify that? You don't. This is just a really weird ethical dilemma that has an amazing amount of nuance.
There are very many issues that are very complex that I still think polls make sense for. Unless it is an amazingly specific poll, I think every abortion poll misses the mark.
|
On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. Show nested quote + 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill.
I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept.
I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one.
a yes/no answer is sufficient:
Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby?
Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)?
Abortion due to death of baby in utero?
Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother?
Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks?
Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks?
Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks?
Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)?
Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)?
Abortion due to disolved relationship?
Abortion due to age <18?
Abortion due to rape?
What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned.
EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^
|
On February 27 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened.
The pro-life folks that are against this bill going to demonize any abortion legislation. Just like the leadership of the NRA will oppose any gun law focused on safety, regardless of the content or impact. So why bother trying to please people who are going to demonize anyone who passes responsible legislation?
As for your theory, I’m not seeing it. I’ve followed the trends on abortion and people have had the same views on late term abortion for a long time. Same with the pro-choice to pro-life split. If the question is changed to: Should performing or having an abortion be criminalized, the data will show that Americans do not want to outlaw abortion. So your narrative of shifting views doesn’t hold much water.
|
On February 27 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened.
How much coverage nationwide did these two events receive? I do respect you xDaunt but the principle of parsimony makes it hard for me to believe that the reason for a 14(!) point shift in nationwide opinion over the span of a month is due to two events I had no knowledge of before today, and not due to polling error of some kind (which is quite prevalent and difficult to control even among authoritative pollsters).
|
|
|
On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^
There are even more:
-A dead TWIN in the utero.
-Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience.
-Very young mothers
Etc.
|
On February 27 2019 04:38 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened. How much coverage nationwide did these two events receive? I do respect you xDaunt but the principle of parsimony makes it hard for me to believe that the reason for a 14(!) point shift in nationwide opinion over the span of a month is due to two events I had no knowledge of before today, and not due to polling error of some kind (which is quite prevalent and difficult to control even among authoritative pollsters).
Northram got quite a bit of media play, probably more than the NY bill. Frankly, I half suspect that Democrats/leftists dropped the yearbook/blackface stuff when they did to make his infanticide comments go away. Regardless, I'm certainly open to alternative explanations for why there's been such a sudden, huge shift. It could be polling error, but that's highly unlikely given that it's not a new poll.
|
On February 27 2019 04:38 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:21 xDaunt wrote:
Justify the NY bill all you want, but the fact remains that it likely has contributed to a popular backlash against pro-choice positions as is reflected in that poll. Same with the NC governor's comments. Those are the only two relevant things that happened in the period when the big shift in abortion attitudes happened. How much coverage nationwide did these two events receive? I do respect you xDaunt but the principle of parsimony makes it hard for me to believe that the reason for a 14(!) point shift in nationwide opinion over the span of a month is due to two events I had no knowledge of before today, and not due to polling error of some kind (which is quite prevalent and difficult to control even among authoritative pollsters).
The 14 point shift seems to be rooted in a debate about late term abortions and a couple bills concerning them. Due to amount of coverage and media traction these bills got and the reported impact(due to one poll), you can expect to see a big push by conservatives to make this into a wedge issue. Now mind you, the poll could just be wrong. It is just one data point. My expectation is that people don’t understand who gets these “late term abortions” and why restrictions on them target a effective handful of women making very hard medical choices. Once more knowledge is out there, the numbers will slide back down.
|
On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc.
And way more than that. The whole issue is absolutely impossible to legislate. There is too much ethical/situational nuance.
|
On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc.
Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says.
Meanwhile, there is this wonderful tactic of finding someone who says something stupid, claim that they are in the other team, and then claiming that everyone on that side (which you still define yourself) thus agrees with that stupid thing.
To anyone who pays any attention, it should be obviously clear that very few people are either at the "abortion always legal" or "abortion always criminal" side of things. But for some reason, people always try to split every issue into two sides that fight. That might be a result of the US two-party system, but i am seeing similar things here from time to time. There clearly are a lot of different positions on political questions, not only with relation to abortion, the same is true for most complex questions of policy. But it is a lot easier to just assume that everyone who disagrees with you have basically the same position.
So, if you define yourself as "pro-life", don't assume that everyone who you define as "pro-choice" is a hivemind that agrees on everything. The same thing is true the other way around.
Also, i gotta say that i am pretty annoyed that this particular wave of argument seems to be seeping over into Germany from the US. We now also have militant pro-life people who sue doctors who neutrally posit that they perform abortions, because they claim that that is "advertisement", and advertisement for abortions is illegal under German law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
