Secular Sanity Wrote:The law follows suit with the federal law. The only things that were added were "fetal viability" and licensed practitioners to ensure access in areas where there are few physicians.
Your factcheck link says exactly what I did, that "New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health”", nor does it reference Doe v Bolton (where it was defined), in which the plaintiff was lied to, pro-life, and tried to have it overturned. And practitioners, or nurse practitioners, actually lower the standard of care from a full MD.
Silly boy, it follows suit with the federal law just like I said. The federal law does not explicitly define "health".
The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.
Abortion issues are never (what did you say) "no brainers?" They’re extremely complicated and there all sorts of serious considerations that have to be taken in.
We all know that there are psychological issues that may have an underlying physical component. We also know that there are psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death. Not only has science advanced in viability and prenatal care, but we've also made advancements in our understanding of mental illness.
The patient’s physical or mental health is a judgement that should be made by a licensed practitioner, not the state. What type of state employee do you think should make that call? If the practitioner is licensed by the State, they should be capable of making a clinical judgement.
"The ultimate result of a narrow interpretation of "health" will be an irrational world where a woman who develops a serious heart problem will be permitted to have an abortion, but a woman who develops a serious mental problem that will be worsened by carrying the fetus to term will be banned from having an abortion."
I think she’s right. A world where someone is denied an abortion, but is mentally incompetent, and unable to care for the child would be irrational. We’re currently trying to combat the stigma of mental illness. Can you imagine someone saying, "Uh, sorry, dear, but she has a heart condition and you just have schizophrenia. Next!"
"The answer is that opponents of abortion do not think there should be an exception for abortions that endanger a woman's health. Life, yes, but not health."
The question that you have to ask yourself was put forth in Chief Judge Posner’s above statement.
Is fetal life more valuable than a woman’s health?
Secular Sanity Wrote:The law follows suit with the federal law. The only things that were added were "fetal viability" and licensed practitioners to ensure access in areas where there are few physicians.
Your factcheck link says exactly what I did, that "New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health”", nor does it reference Doe v Bolton (where it was defined), in which the plaintiff was lied to, pro-life, and tried to have it overturned. And practitioners, or nurse practitioners, actually lower the standard of care from a full MD.
Silly boy, it follows suit with the federal law just like I said. The federal law does not explicitly define "health".
Wow, I JUST gave you the federal ruling that explicitly defined "health" (and included "emotional and psychological factors"), and you immediately claim federal law doesn't define it.
Doing your footwork for you.
Quote:The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.
You're quoting things without making it clear what is and is not a quote, which is plagiarism. Quit being lazy, type quotation marks.
Yeah, exceptions for mental health, but without actually consulting a trained mental health professional.
Quote:Abortion issues are never (what did you say) "no brainers?" They’re extremely complicated and there all sorts of serious considerations that have to be taken in.
No, I said:
(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: I said a "woman's life being in danger is trivial" because, in that case, it is a no-brainer to save the woman.
It wasn't a comment on abortion issues in general, but I think we're all well-aware of your straw man arguments by now.
Why, do you think a woman's life shouldn't automatically take precedent, i.e. be a no-brainer? O_o
Quote:We all know that there are psychological issues that may have an underlying physical component. We also know that there are psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death. Not only has science advanced in viability and prenatal care, but we've also made advancements in our understanding of mental illness.
The patient’s physical or mental health is a judgement that should be made by a licensed practitioner, not the state. What type of state employee do you think should make that call? If the practitioner is licensed by the State, they should be capable of making a clinical judgement.
If you're going to have that standard, you should be promoting the best standard of care and have specifically trained mental health professionals diagnosing mental health problems. Otherwise, all your other standard of care arguments are disingenuous and your mental health exception is a Trojan horse for patient whim.
By go ahead, name some of these "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death", wouldn't be diagnosed earlier than the third trimester, and if discovered in the third trimester would not have ample time to complete the third trimester.
And beyond that, which "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death" are cured by abortion? O_o
Again, "licensed practitioners", as opposed to "medical practitioners", includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants, which is lowering the standard of care. That's even further removed from being trained to diagnose mental illness.
Quote:"The ultimate result of a narrow interpretation of "health" will be an irrational world where a woman who develops a serious heart problem will be permitted to have an abortion, but a woman who develops a serious mental problem that will be worsened by carrying the fetus to term will be banned from having an abortion."
I think she’s right. A world where someone is denied an abortion, but is mentally incompetent, and unable to care for the child would be irrational. We’re currently trying to combat the stigma of mental illness. Can you imagine someone saying, "Uh, sorry, dear, but she has a heart condition and you just have schizophrenia. Next!"
Again, what mental health problems "will be worsened by carrying the fetus to term"? Where are the studies on these?
Being unable to care for a child has NOTHING to do with being able to carry one to term, as adoption and even anonymous abdication of a woman's parental responsibilities is readily available.
Does having an abortion cure schizophrenia?!!! O_O
Quote:"The answer is that opponents of abortion do not think there should be an exception for abortions that endanger a woman's health. Life, yes, but not health."
The question that you have to ask yourself was put forth in Chief Judge Posner’s above statement.
Is fetal life more valuable than a woman’s health?
And here I am again doing all the footwork. You're either lazy or incompetent. Maybe both.
Your temporary health does not trump the life of another. If you think so, you're morally bankrupt.
Yes, another human life IS worth more than your temporary health.
And tooting your own horn about doing footwork while arduously avoiding all the citations of others is just more of your intellectual dishonesty.
I haven't followed closely (lack of time). On a slightly different front.. If you [Syne] were offered the choice between passing something the size of a grapefruit through your anus or not having to do that - what would you choose? Take your time - this isn't an easy question and there is no obvious answer.
(Feb 7, 2019 01:23 AM)confused2 Wrote: I haven't followed closely (lack of time). On a slightly different front.. If you [Syne] were offered the choice between passing something the size of a grapefruit through your anus or not having to do that - what would you choose? Take your time - this isn't an easy question and there is no obvious answer.
Is that euphemistic "something" a human life, as defined by science?
Is there also an option for cesarean?
Not a hard question after all.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement in 2013 advising women to plan for a vaginal delivery whenever possible. Unless the health of the mother or baby is in danger
- https://www.babycenter.com/0_c-section-b...lesection7
So since abortion law considers "health" to include emotional/psychological well-being, the same standard of care should be available to women seeking to give birth. No? O_o
@Syne,
Your love of humanity is impressive - I don't know how many people actually care that much (certainly not me.). Your point is that people (everyone) should care or be forced to go through the motions as if they care as much as you do - even if they don't. Comment invited at that point.
(Feb 7, 2019 03:26 AM)confused2 Wrote: @Syne,
Your love of humanity is impressive - I don't know how many people actually care that much (certainly not me.). Your point is that people (everyone) should care or be forced to go through the motions as if they care as much as you do - even if they don't. Comment invited at that point.
You don't have to care to be held to a basic ethical standard, based on science, by a civilized modern society. The future will view the over 600,000 abortions a year in the US on par with slavery and the Holocaust...and for the same reason, that people had simply decided that some human life didn't have value. And no one has to "go through the motions" if they are only responsible enough to use one of the many forms of birth control (99.9% effective) and/or the morning after pill (95% effective in the first 24 hours).
Here's an idea, what if only those who can prove they've done both are allowed abortions? Wouldn't that be a good compromise? You know, prove you might be responsible enough to decide whether another human lives or dies. No? Just too inconvenient? A vagina alone is a license to kill? "It's Your Conscience. We Don't Talk A Lot These Days."
(Feb 6, 2019 11:28 PM)Syne Wrote: Wow, I JUST gave you the federal ruling that explicitly defined "health" (and included "emotional and psychological factors"), and you immediately claim federal law doesn't define it.
I don’t have time to teach someone that is obviously not interested in knowing the full facts of each case, but I did however, provide you with a paper that contains all the cases and the opinions of the judges in regards to how the term "health" is defined. Keep in mind, though that the companion case involved an appellant that was only 8 weeks along. The Georgia law as it stood prevented her from obtaining an abortion because it only allowed for cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother. The decision was made on the same day as Roe vs. Wade, which, as you know, allowed for an abortion for any reason up until viability.
"Abortions that occur beyond 24 weeks make up less than 1% of all procedures."
CNN: Can you explain why abortions happen later in a pregnancy?
There are many reasons why women may need to access abortion later in pregnancy, including maternal health endangerment, diagnosis of fetal abnormalities or restrictive laws delaying earlier access to abortion care. Those exceptionally rare cases that happen after 24 weeks are often because a fetus has a condition that cannot be treated and will never be able to survive -- regardless of the gestational age or trimester.
It's this exact reason that it's nonsensical to legislate these cases: Nobody arrives at the decision to have an abortion after 24 weeks carelessly. Rather, it's the rare case of rapidly decompensating maternal heart disease or a delayed diagnosis of anencephaly, where the fetus forms without a complete brain or skull, that bring people to these decisions.
Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus.
Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman's health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. These conditions can also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. They might include premature rupture of membranes (where the fluid surrounding the fetus is lost before labor), uterine infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal.
It's important to note, if a woman's health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.
In the case of either lethal fetal anomalies or complications that endanger a woman's life, it's essential that women and their physicians are able to consider the full range of appropriate treatments, whether that's abortion care, induction of labor or cesarean birth. Every pregnant woman's situation and medical condition are different, and there is no way to make a one-size-fits-all determination about the appropriate care.
No matter what, care must be compassionate and recognize that for many women, the choices they are facing are devastating and immensely complicated.
CNN: Can any woman simply choose to have an abortion late in her pregnancy?
Abortion later in pregnancy is a very complex decision and, often, a very emotional one. We know that women who make the decision to have an abortion do so in a considered, deliberate fashion. This is especially true for women who have abortions later in pregnancy who are often facing devastating fetal diagnoses or life-threatening conditions that may introduce a multitude of clinical considerations into their decision-making.
Moreover, the ob-gyns who provide later in pregnancy abortion care have very specific training both in the technical procedure, as well as ethical decision-making in complex clinical circumstances.
Federal law is meant to protect the right to abortion up to the point of viability (often thought of as 24 weeks from the last menstrual period), but numerous states have subsequently enacted harmful gestational age limits that are ideologically motivated and not based in science. Your right to an abortion is now absolutely based on the accident of your ZIP code.
If a person needs to end their pregnancy after 24 weeks, there are a limited number of places in the country where they can do that, and the approval process for that procedure is scrupulous.
Syne Wrote:You're quoting things without making it clear what is and is not a quote, which is plagiarism.
Shut the fuck up. The link is right there. This is a casual setting. Who cares if I miss a few quotation marks? You should be grateful that I’m even responding to you.
Let’s cut the shit. You’re not just opposed to late-term abortion. You’re pro-life and it’s obvious that you didn’t even realize that the exception for "health" was and has been the same for post-viability since 1973. The New York law only included nonviable fetuses and licensed practitioners to ensure access in areas where there are few physicians. Do your fucking homework!
Secular Sanity Wrote:Abortion issues are never (what did you say) "no brainers?" They’re extremely complicated and there all sorts of serious considerations that have to be taken in.
Syne Wrote:No, I said:
(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: I said a "woman's life being in danger is trivial" because, in that case, it is a no-brainer to save the woman.
But that's not what you originally said, is it?
You said...
(Feb 4, 2019 05:58 PM)Syne Wrote: A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway. It's obviously always better to save one life rather than lose two. So this is another disingenuous or ignorant argument.
And there's a big difference.
Syne Wrote:By go ahead, name some of these "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death".
Eating disorders, reckless behavior, drug and alcohol addiction, and suicide.
Syne Wrote:And beyond that, which "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death" are cured by abortion?
There are numerous studies showing that an abortion can relieve the stress of an unwanted pregnancy. Forced continuation can have immediate and long term effects on mental health.
Syne Wrote:Where are the studies on these?
They're easy to locate. Maybe your search engines algorithms have developed a bias, as well.
Syne Wrote:Being unable to care for a child has NOTHING to do with being able to carry one to term, as adoption and even anonymous abdication of a woman's parental responsibilities is readily available.
Woah! So, if you’re mentally ill you should be forced to give birth and put the baby up for adoption?
And somehow this isn’t going to increase the risk to the mother’s mental health?
Syne Wrote:Your temporary health does not trump the life of another.
Temporary health? You’re just assuming that licensed practitioners aren’t capable of making that decision, and insisting that the state should step in, which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Let’s not forget that history has shown that the criminalization of abortion didn’t prevent women from seeking them to control their reproduction. There’s a long history of abortion.
Quote:Prior to 1973 the authority to legalize abortion rested with the state governments. Up through the 1960s 44 states had laws that outlawed abortions regardless if the abortion threatened the well-being of the mother.
In the 1940s records show that more than 1,000 women died each year from abortions that were labeled as unsafe. Many of these abortions were self-induced. Unsafe abortion practices were such a concern in the United States that nearly every large hospital had some type of "septic abortion ward" that was responsible for dealing with the complications that accompanied an incomplete abortion. Incomplete abortions were the leading cause for OB-GYN services across the United States. In the 1960s, the National Opinion Research Center found that hundreds of women were attempting to self-abort with coat hangers, knitting needles and ballpoint pens, and by swallowing toxic chemicals like bleach and laundry detergent. However, the number of deaths declined significantly into the 1960s and 1970s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972, 130,000 women attempted self-induced abortions or obtained illegal abortions, resulting in 39 deaths.
SyneFeb 7, 2019 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: Feb 7, 2019 07:30 AM by Syne.)
(Feb 7, 2019 06:34 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 6, 2019 11:28 PM)Syne Wrote: Wow, I JUST gave you the federal ruling that explicitly defined "health" (and included "emotional and psychological factors"), and you immediately claim federal law doesn't define it.
I don’t have time to teach someone that is obviously not interested in knowing the full facts of each case, but I did however, provide you with a paper that contains all the cases and the opinions of the judges in regards to how the term "health" is defined.
Then maybe you shouldn't say stupid crap like this:
(Feb 6, 2019 06:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Silly boy, it follows suit with the federal law just like I said. The federal law does not explicitly define "health".
What, you just didn't know that how "health" was defined in your cited paper was federal law? And now you're trying to backpedal? Read you own citations, deary.
Quote:"Abortions that occur beyond 24 weeks make up less than 1% of all procedures."
...the number of infant deaths [not fetus deaths] that are the result of...an induced termination.
...143 (24.3%) could definitively be classified as involving an induced termination. A list of the terms on which this number is based is shown below. Most of the remaining deaths are clearly spontaneous. However, it is possible that this number (143) underestimates the total number of deaths involving induced termination.
- https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health_policy/m...gnancy.htm
If even one preventable infanticide occurs, that's one too many. That's what the Democrat Virginia governor advocated.
And 1% of over 600,000 is over 6,000.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:You're quoting things without making it clear what is and is not a quote, which is plagiarism.
Shut the fuck up. The link is right there. This is a casual setting. Who cares if I miss a few quotation marks? You should be grateful that I’m even responding to you.
I don't give a crap if you respond to me, deary. If you can't help but plagiarize stuff, by all means, quit responding.
Quote:Let’s cut the shit. You’re not just opposed to late-term abortion. You’re pro-life and it’s obvious that you didn’t even realize that the exception for "health" was and has been the same for post-viability since 1973. The New York law only included nonviable fetuses and licensed practitioners to ensure access in areas where there are few physicians. Do your fucking homework!
Yeah, big surprise, I'm against Roe v Wade, and every ruling that supports it. If you're just now cluing in on that fact, well bless your heart.
I know the existing slippery slope exceptions, and I know that the NY law expanded on them with even less trained licensed practitioners and no criminal penalty for killing a baby prior to viability through violence against the mother (you must be so proud of them reducing the potential penalties for domestic abuse), and Dems in congress just made sure any doctor committing infanticide won't be punished.
Quote:
Secular Sanity Wrote:Abortion issues are never (what did you say) "no brainers?" They’re extremely complicated and there all sorts of serious considerations that have to be taken in.
Syne Wrote:No, I said:
(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: I said a "woman's life being in danger is trivial" because, in that case, it is a no-brainer to save the woman.
But that's not what you originally said, is it?
You said...
(Feb 4, 2019 05:58 PM)Syne Wrote: A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway. It's obviously always better to save one life rather than lose two. So this is another disingenuous or ignorant argument.
And there's a big difference.
No, just your appalling reading comprehension.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:By go ahead, name some of these "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death".
Eating disorders, reckless behavior, drug and alcohol addiction, and suicide.
Have them committed for their own safety then. Abortion is not going to stop any of that behavior and pregnancy does not contribute to them.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:And beyond that, which "psychological disorders that can lead to bodily diseases and death" are cured by abortion?
There are numerous studies showing that an abortion can relieve the stress of an unwanted pregnancy. Forced continuation can have immediate and long term effects on mental health.
Oh, so when you can no longer quote the ONE paper you found, you're mum on citations, huh?
Footwork my ass.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Where are the studies on these?
They're easy to locate. Maybe your search engines algorithms have developed a bias, as well.
No reason to believe you, as you've been repeatedly intellectually dishonest.
All your self-congratulatory "footwork" seems to of only been laying the ground work for you to completely shit the bed.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Being unable to care for a child has NOTHING to do with being able to carry one to term, as adoption and even anonymous abdication of a woman's parental responsibilities is readily available.
Woah! So, if you’re mentally ill you should be forced to give birth and put the baby up for adoption?
And somehow this isn’t going to increase the risk to the mother’s mental health?
You didn't say "mentally ill", you said:
(Feb 6, 2019 06:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: mentally incompetent, and unable to care for the child
If you're mentally ill, you may recover and become capable of caring for your child, in which case it would likely be in the care of family members or a foster home in the meantime.
But if you are mentally incompetent, you cannot legally make decisions for yourself, much less for the life of another.
No, pregnancy is not a symptom of nor a contributor to mental illness.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Your temporary health does not trump the life of another.
Temporary health? You’re just assuming that licensed practitioners aren’t capable of making that decision, and insisting that the state should step in, which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Nurse practitioners and physician's assistants, who have even less training in diagnosing mental illness than doctors, who are themselves poorly equipped to do so.
Your privacy rights do not include you killing another.
Quote:Let’s not forget that history has shown that the criminalization of abortion didn’t prevent women from seeking them to control their reproduction. There’s a long history of abortion.
Quote:Prior to 1973 the authority to legalize abortion rested with the state governments. Up through the 1960s 44 states had laws that outlawed abortions regardless if the abortion threatened the well-being of the mother.
In the 1940s records show that more than 1,000 women died each year from abortions that were labeled as unsafe. Many of these abortions were self-induced. Unsafe abortion practices were such a concern in the United States that nearly every large hospital had some type of "septic abortion ward" that was responsible for dealing with the complications that accompanied an incomplete abortion. Incomplete abortions were the leading cause for OB-GYN services across the United States. In the 1960s, the National Opinion Research Center found that hundreds of women were attempting to self-abort with coat hangers, knitting needles and ballpoint pens, and by swallowing toxic chemicals like bleach and laundry detergent. However, the number of deaths declined significantly into the 1960s and 1970s. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972, 130,000 women attempted self-induced abortions or obtained illegal abortions, resulting in 39 deaths.
If you think that criminalizing abortion is good for our society then you're the one who is morally bankrupt.
1,000 deaths compared to over 600,000 is easy math for the morally sane. Our society no longer has anywhere near the stigma, if any exists at all, on single-motherhood it did at that time. So you're making an argument that is obsolete.
(Feb 7, 2019 06:34 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I don’t have time to teach someone that is obviously not interested in knowing the full facts of each case, but I did however, provide you with a paper that contains all the cases and the opinions of the judges in regards to how the term "health" is defined.
Then maybe you shouldn't say stupid crap like this:
(Feb 6, 2019 06:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Silly boy, it follows suit with the federal law just like I said. The federal law does not explicitly define "health".
What, you just didn't know that how "health" was defined in your cited paper was federal law? And now you're trying to backpedal? Read you own citations, deary.
I read them and I've examined each case independently.
The majority opined that a health exception should not be required to specify explicitly mental or psychological health in its language to avoid a vagueness challenge. Rather, the "general usage and modern understanding" of the word health was broad enough to encompass physical, mental, and psychological health risks, all by implication. In Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, the Court also interpreted the meaning of "health" very broadly.
The majority opined, "This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman." In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, in which the district court had invalidated a statute banning partial birth abortion, the Third Circuit similarly provided a very broad definition of "health": A woman's health may be severely compromised by carrying a pregnancy to term. Certain physical and mental health conditions are aggravated by or progress during pregnancy. Physiological stress on the body increases during pregnancy and may exacerbate physical conditions such as certain neurological and immunological diseases, liver or kidney disease, severe hypertension, cardiac conditions, and diabetes. For example…[a] woman who suffers from a severe eye disease, relating to a preexisting condition of diabetes, may, because her laser therapy is inconsistent with pregnancy, incur blindness if required to carry to term. Mental conditions, such as schizophrenia, may also worsen as a result of a pregnancy.
Many courts that have supported a broad interpretation of the meaning of "health" have emphasized that health exceptions should include mental, as well as physical, health risks. For example, in many of the cases already discussed, the courts defined "health" to include mental and psychological health: Roe ("psychological harm," "mental and physical health"); Vuitch ("mental" and "psychological" health); Bolton ("physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial" health); and Verniero ("mental conditions").
In Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, the Sixth Circuit invalidated an Ohio statute that banned the D&X procedure, banned all post-viability abortions, and contained a viabilitytesting requirement.The statute contained a health exception for when a "physician determines ... that the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. The exception provided exemptions for a non-exhaustive list of health risks, all of which the court found to be unquestionably physical in nature. The court held that "on its face," the statute "appears to be limited to physical health risks. Relying on Bolton and Vuitch, the Sixth Circuit held that a statute banning post-viability abortions must contain a health exception that includes both physical and mental health risks. The court concluded that a post-viability abortion ban that did not account for mental health risks unconstitutionally violated Roe and Casey's holding that in post-viability abortions, the state cannot proscribe abortions when they are necessary to preserve the woman's life or health.
The Impermissible "Trade-Off" Some courts have held that requiring a health risk to meet a particular level of severity is unconstitutional because it results in a statute that no longer focuses on maternal health as its "paramount concern." For example, in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Court invalidated a choice of method statute because the statute's health exception was unconstitutional. The health exception provided that a doctor was exempt from the choice of method requirement if, "in [his] goodfaith medical judgment [the abortion] technique 'would present a significantly greater medical risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman. “The majority affirmed the lower court's finding that the statute's health exception required an unconstitutional "trade-off between the woman's health and fetal survival, and failed to require that maternal health be the physician's paramount consideration. “The majority opined that the language, "significantly greater medical risk," unconstitutionally required the "mother to bear an increased medical risk in order to save her viable fetus.
The Tenth Circuit found the statute unconstitutional because: Under the statute ... [the woman] may have to endure additional health damage and suffering if the method most likely to save her unborn child's life.., would itself inflict damage, albeit not "grave" damage, on her health .... [This] clearly demand[s] that a woman bear an "increased medical risk" in order to save the life of a viable fetus.
When first articulating the "appropriate medical judgment" standard, the Roe Court did not address explicitly whether it intended the phrase to be interpreted objectively, subjectively, or somewhere in between. Throughout Roe, however, the majority consistently stressed the central role of the physician in the abortion decision, both in counseling the woman about whether to have the abortion, and in determining how the abortion was to be carried out. Moreover, the Roe decision contains language that strongly suggests approval of a case-by-case, doctor-by-doctor, and determination of whether an abortion is necessary. [To read more: see source that was previously provided]
(Feb 3, 2019 06:40 AM)Syne Wrote: You obviously save the five-year-old first. Embryos will not reach any potential at all unless implanted and gestated, whereas a child is already a realized potential.
I get it. There was no easy bake ovens to bake the bread of life.
(Feb 4, 2019 05:58 PM)Syne Wrote: A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway. It's obviously always better to save one life rather than lose two.
I get it. You’d lose the "means to an end" anyway.
(Jan 29, 2019 09:01 PM)Syne Wrote: The problem with psychopaths is that their motives are just alien to most people. They see people as just a means to an end.
’Syne’ Wrote:1,000 deaths compared to over 600,000 is easy math for the morally sane.
It's a 1,000 "actual" deaths compared to 600, 000 "potential" lives.
So, shut up and calculate. Is that what you’re saying?
Okay, if you want to look at it from a utilitarian perspective, you have to realize that you’re actually playing god. You believe that you can read their minds and know their motives, and you’re assuming the worst in others because you think that it’s not only women that can’t be trusted to make the right choice, but licensed practitioners, as well.
(Jan 28, 2019 05:39 PM)Syne Wrote: A god would know everyone more intimately than friends or loved ones, so everyone wouldn't be the same. A god could see the ultimate causes for their faults and love who people truly are. And a god could see the evil brewing in those who, for instance, go on killing sprees without warning.
That's the hitch in utilitarianism. We do not have the perspective to determine the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Would those five lives produce more subsequent good than the one? We have no way of knowing.
If a god exists, it is the ultimate source of morality. So it's pointless to ask what choice a god might make, as that would be moral, just by dint of it being god. So god only passes judgement on the choice. And free will determines that judgement, otherwise there wouldn't be any real choice, nor moral judgement, to begin with.
If abortion was illegal, the women that really want an abortion will seek it out regardless, and for the many in which it is a risk to their health, access will be more difficult, and more deaths would occur as a result.
Syne Wrote:You are free to sacrifice yourself, but you are not justified in ending the free will of another unless they critically threaten someone else's free will, especially the life to exert that will.
Yep, and using the force of law to compel a person to use her body against her will to bring a pregnancy to term is a violation of her physical autonomy and decisional freedom, which the Constitution does not allow.
Quote:The 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law. A person has the right to end a pregnancy without undue interference from the government because that right to liberty includes (1) the right to make decisions about family and (2) the right to bodily integrity. Roe v. Wade
Quote:Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion were challenged. The Court's plurality opinion reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Syne Wrote:Yeah, big surprise, I'm against Roe v Wade, and every ruling that supports it. If you're just now cluing in on that fact, well bless your heart.
(Jan 29, 2019 09:01 PM)Syne Wrote: The problem with psychopaths is that their motives are just alien to most people. They see people as just a means to an end.
’Syne’ Wrote:1,000 deaths compared to over 600,000 is easy math for the morally sane.
It's a 1,000 "actual" deaths compared to 600, 000 "potential" lives.
No, science clearly classifies them as actual human life. Not having realized any significant potential does not mean it is not a life.
Quote:So, shut up and calculate. Is that what you’re saying?
Okay, if you want to look at it from a utilitarian perspective, you have to realize that you’re actually playing god. You believe that you can read their minds and know their motives, and you’re assuming the worst in others because you think that it’s not only women that can’t be trusted to make the right choice, but licensed practitioners, as well.
Licensed practitioners, e.g. nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are even less trained in diagnosing mental illness than doctors, who are themselves poorly equipped to do so. It is said practitioners playing god by deciding who lives and dies without the specialized training to even determine mental health beyond what the person tells them.
I only assume the facts...that they have little to no specialized mental health training.
Quote:
(Jan 28, 2019 05:39 PM)Syne Wrote: A god would know everyone more intimately than friends or loved ones, so everyone wouldn't be the same. A god could see the ultimate causes for their faults and love who people truly are. And a god could see the evil brewing in those who, for instance, go on killing sprees without warning.
That's the hitch in utilitarianism. We do not have the perspective to determine the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Would those five lives produce more subsequent good than the one? We have no way of knowing.
If a god exists, it is the ultimate source of morality. So it's pointless to ask what choice a god might make, as that would be moral, just by dint of it being god. So god only passes judgement on the choice. And free will determines that judgement, otherwise there wouldn't be any real choice, nor moral judgement, to begin with.
If abortion was illegal, the women that really want an abortion will seek it out regardless, and for the many in which it is a risk to their health, access will be more difficult, and more deaths would occur as a result.
And there are many illegal drugs and behaviors that people seek out, risking their own lives as well. The social stigma that drove illegal abortions in the 40s and 50s no longer exists today.
Nothing about illegal abortion would hinder access to save the mother's life.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:You are free to sacrifice yourself, but you are not justified in ending the free will of another unless they critically threaten someone else's free will, especially the life to exert that will.
Yep, and using the force of law to compel a person to use her body against her will to bring a pregnancy to term is a violation of her physical autonomy and decisional freedom, which the Constitution does not allow.
There's your failing reading comprehension again.
Nothing in the Constitution says you MUST be allowed to avoid the consequences for your own decisions. And life always takes precedent over liberty, as you never have the liberty to kill another unless they are a threat to your life, hence the life of the mother exception.
Feb 6, 2019 06:53 PM
(This post was last modified: Feb 6, 2019 07:24 PM by Secular Sanity.)
