The dearth of self-awareness

#41
I prefer seeing questions of abortion vs the mother's health kept between the doctor and the mother. We don't need the state and a bunch of angry anti-abortionists dictating such personal and iffy situational matters. The law simply makes that drastic option available if needed in rare cases.
Reply
#42
(Feb 5, 2019 06:01 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Syne’s political stunts…
(Feb 2, 2019 07:37 PM)Syne Wrote: They do not define "health", which means it could be non-life-threatening illness or mental health, i.e. mother's subjective whim.
There is ZERO language in the bill about viability, so your "when the fetus is no longer viable" is completely made up.
(Feb 3, 2019 04:01 AM)Syne Wrote: And NY is saying you can kill a baby AFTER it can survive outside the womb. So there goes that argument.
(Feb 4, 2019 05:58 PM)Syne Wrote: No, again, your freedom ends where it harms another human life. Your temporary health, body integrity, emotions, employment, and affiliations do not justify killing a human life, monster.

Again, the NY law allows aborting viable babies for just about any reason, like the aforementioned health, emotions, etc.. So any argument of yours centered around viability is completely disingenuous unless you decide to utterly disavow laws like the one in NY.

And "the continued existence of the [born child] ... is entirely contingent on the provision of affirmative support by a [caregiver]". So your reasoning not only supports abortion, it also supports infanticide, psychopath.
(Feb 4, 2019 09:12 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, you add in "health" as an euphemism that effectively means any reason whatsoever. Should you also kill your child who has a cold because he might threaten your health by spreading it to you? Should you kill the homeless because they may be a threat to public health, like the current typhus outbreak in California? Of course not, as a threat to health is very different from a threat to life.

And again, for the umpteenth time, the NY law allows abortion of viable babies for effectively any reason. So all your hemming and hawing about how rare later-term abortions are is meaningless if you don't want them limited in any way.
None of which you ever managed, nor if memory serves even attempted, to refute. Rolleyes
Calling them "stunts" is just a transparent attempt to poison the well. A "don't pay attention to these arguments because they're far too damning to my point" fallacy.

Quote:That is a gross misrepresentation of the law.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

© For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

At the point in time when the fetus becomes viable, the state may regulate the abortion procedure only to the extent that such regulation relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health; from and after the point in time when the fetus becomes viable, the state may prohibit abortions altogether, except those necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, and the state may proscribe the performance of all abortions except those performed by physicians currently licensed by the state.
Why did you link the NY law but you're only quoting Roe v Wade? Are you intellectually dishonest, or not smart enough to know the difference? O_o
All my above quotes you call a "stunt" are about the new NY law. You pretending to be quoting that law is the only intellectually dishonest "stunt" here. So quit projecting. Dodgy

Quote:Nobody is pro-abortion. They’re pro-choice. That doesn’t mean that the fetus is completely irrelevant, though. That’s not what the debate is about. It's about the ability of a woman to choose. The mental health exemption is not a loophole that’s easily exploited like you’re portraying. It’s necessary to protect a woman’s life or health as determine by a licensed physician. There’s a conservative approach. Mental health is only included when the legal text actually employs the term. The psychological distress caused by, for example, rape or incest, or by diagnosis of fetal impairment.
No, "pro-choice" is a euphemism to disguise the fact that the ONLY CHOICE you are arguing for is KILLING BABIES. Otherwise, you'd be pushing all the other choices women have, like the pill, the sponge, the patch, the ring, the shot, the implant, the morning-after pill, adoption, and even anonymously leaving the newborn at a fire station.
As I've already told you (and you even quoted above), "health" is nowhere defined in the NY law, which means any woman can simply claim to be suicidal to obtain an abortion at any point in the pregnancy. Many doctors give their patients what they want, barring malpractice risk, and medical doctors are not even trained to diagnose mental illness.

This winter, I’ll see more patients with seasonal-affective disorder than the flu, and the tissues in my exam room will dry tears more often than they muffle sneezes. The problem is, I lack the time or training to diagnose and manage many psychiatric disorders. And some studies, such as this one about low rates of detection of anxiety and depression by primary-care doctors, show that I’m probably not all that great at doing so. Still, over a third of all mental-health care in the U.S. is now provided by primary-care doctors, nurse practitioners, pediatricians, and family practitioners.
- https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of...octors-job

A "conservative approach" is not defined in the NY law, and vagueness in legal text is well-known to allow for ad hoc interpretation.

Vagueness is ubiquitous in the law, and frequently legal actors (courts and others who apply the law) must resolve borderline cases. Every law student is familiar with the strategies that are employed, which include case-by-case balancing tests, supplementary doctrines that provide bright-line rules to implement vague legal texts, and so forth.
- https://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_...ry_le.html

There is no definition of "health" nor any "bright rules" in the NY law.

The psychological distress caused by rape or incest has already been done. Abortion cannot change that.

Quote:
Syne Wrote:A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway.

It’s called severe maternal morbidity.

A woman’s life may be trivial to you but records show that the rates of severe maternal morbidity is increasing.
I didn't say a "woman's life is trivial". That's either more of your intellectual dishonest or poor reading comprehension. Dodgy
I said a "woman's life being in danger is trivial" because, in that case, it is a no-brainer to save the woman.

Severe maternal morbidity (SMM) includes unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a woman’s health.
- https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/m...idity.html


SMM is not about risk to the mother's life; it's about "short- or long-term consequences to a woman’s health".
Again, learn to read.

Quote:We have a history of oppression. This is something that you cannot deny. You were not born to dominate and rule over us. History shows that criminalizing abortion didn’t prevent them from happening.

A woman’s life may be trivial to you but thousands of women died each year due to back alley and self-induced abortions. Legalization has allowed us access to safe abortions with the decision left to a woman and her doctor without state interference.
Again, you seem to be arguing that a woman's ability to kill a baby is the only bulwark against losing her equal human rights. That is immoral and paranoid.

If women cannot be as responsible as men, as you keep arguing, then they do need to lose the ability to take human life. Criminalizing abortion certainly resulted in fewer of them. And citing that as an argument for legal abortion is just as invalid as citing the fact that men still trying to cause abortions through violence to the mother means that should be legal too. See how evil it is to argue for the legal harm to another just because some people will still do it if it were illegal? By that perverse reasoning, no harm to another should be illegal.

Hundreds of thousands of women die each year NOW...by being aborted. Ain't it fun how basic math works? Why do you think hundreds of thousands of women's lives are trivial compared to only thousands? O_o
And what happened to "safe, legal and rare"? Why aren't safe, legal abortions are rare as "back alley and self-induced abortions"? O_o

Quote:There are plenty of restriction revolving around live but nonviable fetuses. Since you seems to take so much pleasure in trying to seize the moral high ground, perhaps you could volunteer to be a stillborn birth coach.
Who is arguing to save nonviable fetuses? Just another non sequitur, huh? Rolleyes



(Feb 5, 2019 06:53 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: I prefer seeing questions of abortion vs the mother's health kept between the doctor and the mother. We don't need the state and a bunch of angry anti-abortionists dictating such personal and iffy situational matters. The law simply makes that option available if needed in rare cases.

Abortions are not that rare when there are over 600,000 a year in the US alone.

We could also rhetorically say that "we don't need the state and a bunch of angry LGBT dictating such personal and iffy situational matters, like whether gays should be killed" or "the state and a bunch of angry blacks dictating such personal and iffy situational matters, like whether landowners can own people". Harming others is harming others. There is no excuse for it other than saving a life...which is all anti-abortionists are trying to do. And killing babies angers moral people the way I assume killing gays would anger you and those same moral people.
Reply
#43
Quote:Abortions are not that rare when there are over 600,000 a year in the US alone.

How many of those were late term abortions where the mother's life was in jeopardy?

Quote:And killing babies angers moral people the way I assume killing gays would anger you and those same moral people.

A brain-dead unconscious fetus is not morally equivalent to a conscious independently living person. Not even close.

No..we don't need to consult angry abortionists when it comes to the sensitive issue of late term abortion. When it threatens the mother's life, ofcourse we abort.
Reply
#44
(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: Why did you link the NY law but you're only quoting Roe v Wade? Are you intellectually dishonest, or not smart enough to know the difference?

Because you're being intellectually dishonest.

"During the decades since (Roe v. Wade) was decided, there have been numerous court decisions clarifying the scope of the right to abortion but, unfortunately, New York's laws have remained outdated.  Further-more, it is clear that some provisions of New York law are unconstitutional and have proved burdensome to women seeking to assert their constitutionally protected right to an abortion."


syne Wrote:I didn't say a "woman's life is trivial". That's either more of your intellectual dishonest or poor reading comprehension.  Dodgy

I said a "woman's life being in danger is trivial" because, in that case, it is a no-brainer to save the woman.

No, that's not what you said. You said...

Syne Wrote:A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway.


Syne Wrote:SMM is not about risk to the mother's life; it's about "short- or long-term consequences to a woman’s health".
Again, learn to read.

It's about morbidity and the risk of death during and after delivery. Yeah, Syne, women die while giving birth. It's called maternal death. It's not trivial because the fetus dies anyway as you indicated. The baby doesn't always die just because the mother does, duh!

Man-oh-man! You really are starting to sound like an incel.
Reply
#45
(Feb 5, 2019 09:38 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Abortions are not that rare when there are over 600,000 a year in the US alone.

How many of those were late term abortions where the mother's life was in jeopardy?
Don't know, but abortion advocates are not only pushing late-term abortions.
And circumstances that threaten the mother's life can occur at almost any point in a pregnancy.

Quote:
Quote:And killing babies angers moral people the way I assume killing gays would anger you and those same moral people.

A brain-dead unconscious fetus is  not morally equivalent to a conscious independently living person. Not even close.

No..we don't need to consult angry abortionists when it comes to the sensitive issue of late term abortion. When it threatens the mother's life, ofcourse we abort.

Aside from a threat to the life of the mother, which no one argues against saving, it's not a choice between the baby's life and the mother's. It's a choice between the baby's life and the mother's temporary convenience. As I told SS, there IS a gradient of priority along the lines of realized potential of a life. But there is no argument where temporary convenience trumps a human life.

Again, no one has argued against saving the life of the mother. That's a complete straw man. Rolleyes




(Feb 5, 2019 09:56 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 5, 2019 09:06 PM)Syne Wrote: Why did you link the NY law but you're only quoting Roe v Wade? Are you intellectually dishonest, or not smart enough to know the difference?

Because you're being intellectually dishonest.

"During the decades since (Roe v. Wade) was decided, there have been numerous court decisions clarifying the scope of the right to abortion but, unfortunately, New York's laws have remained outdated.  Further-more, it is clear that some provisions of New York law are unconstitutional and have proved burdensome to women seeking to assert their constitutionally protected right to an abortion."
No, you're just projecting your own intellectual dishonesty again.  Rolleyes
And you KEEP failing to give links to your actual sources. This quote is from a MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT for NY Assembly Bill A1748 2017-2018 (completely different legislative session), not the new NY Senate Bill S240 2019-2020 as signed by the governor.  Dodgy

Thanks for being so quick to prove your intellectual dishonesty, or ignorance, beyond any doubt.  Wink

Quote:
syne Wrote:I didn't say a "woman's life is trivial". That's either more of your intellectual dishonest or poor reading comprehension.  Dodgy

I said a "woman's life being in danger is trivial" because, in that case, it is a no-brainer to save the woman.

No, that's not what you said. You said...

Syne Wrote:A woman's life being in danger is trivial, because without her life, the fetus dies anyway.
Yep, and apparently you can't manage to parse that simple sentence. Rolleyes
It's trivial because no one is arguing to not save the mother's life. In context:
(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 as with the balance between a fetus and child, if there's an option to save either (vanishingly rare, if at all), it is justified to save the more realized life...although most women who carry long enough to risk their life wouldn't. Any argument more than threat to her life is a deceptive slippery slope, as we've come to learn, to justify abortion for any reason whatsoever...as the very next sentence proves by immediately leaping to "psychological health".

Just more intellectual dishonesty or failure to read English from you. Rolleyes

Quote:
Syne Wrote:SMM is not about risk to the mother's life; it's about "short- or long-term consequences to a woman’s health".
Again, learn to read.

It's about morbidity and the risk of death during and after delivery. Yeah, Syne, women die while giving birth. It's called maternal death. It's not trivial because the fetus dies anyway as you indicated. The baby doesn't always die just because the mother does, duh!

Wow, you had to selectively fail to quote the CDC source of that definition, without ever providing your own source: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/m...idity.html
Here's another:
"Different groups have offered different definitions of severe morbidity (1–4) and proposed lists of conditions and complications that constitute severe morbidity (4, 5). These definitions share the concept that severe maternal morbidity can be thought of as unintended outcomes of the process of labor and delivery that result in significant short-term or long-term consequences to a woman’s health." - https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-a...eSet=false

Everyone knows birth, in certain circumstances, can be life threatening for the mother. A threat to the mother's life isn't trivial because the fetus also dies, it's trivial that we would try to save the mother, because without her a fetus not yet viable would die. "It's obviously always better to save one life rather than lose two." And I also already explained to you the weighing between lives of different realized potential: "The more realized, the more precedent it takes when balancing between them." So it follows that if only one can be saved, you are justified in saving the mother...if that's her decision.

The circumstance of not being able to deliver a viable baby early to save the mother is vanishingly rare, if at all.

Quote:Man-oh-man! You really are starting to sound like an incel.

You're the one painting women to be far less responsible than men. I keep hoping you'll see the light.
Reply
#46
(Feb 5, 2019 10:06 PM)Syne Wrote: And you KEEP failing to give links to your actual sources. This quote is from a MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT for NY Assembly Bill A1748 2017-2018 (completely different legislative session), not the new NY Senate Bill S240 2019-2020 as signed by the governor.

Maybe it’s time you read it then.

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.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addres...rtion-law/

When you have to stoop to Bell’s level and start calling people rapists, murderers, psychopaths, and monsters then I think it’s safe to say that you don’t know what you’re talking about. And yeah, it makes you sound like an incel. 

I can only stomach so much of you. So, as usually, you’ll have the last word.

See ya later, little buddy.

*sarcasm*

"Getting the last word means that you win the debate. It also shows your moral superiority.

It is particularly important to get the last word where you are in some doubts as to the merits of your case. The last word will serve as a clinching argument that will make up for any deficiencies in your logic. Achieving the last word now also brings the advantage that you may subsequently point to your success in this debate as the clinching argument in future debates. However, if you did not win the last discussion, we still recommend claiming incessantly that you did.

Debates are like boxing matches. Try to make your opponent do the footwork so they get exhausted while you preserve your energy for the final blow Last Word."

Edit: Oh, I forgot. I think they added "priests," too. If you have sex with a priest you can get an abortion because…

Um...well, technically they’re not supposed to have sex.

"Just days ago the Vatican's women's magazine, Women Church World, condemned the abuse, saying in some cases nuns were forced to abort priests' children - something Catholicism forbids."

Wait! Kiss what? That’s not your ring finger.
Reply
#47
(Feb 6, 2019 01:27 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 5, 2019 10:06 PM)Syne Wrote: And you KEEP failing to give links to your actual sources. This quote is from a MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT for NY Assembly Bill A1748 2017-2018 (completely different legislative session), not the new NY Senate Bill S240 2019-2020 as signed by the governor.

Maybe it’s time you read it then.
Silly girl, I was the first to quote it in this thread: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6685-p...l#pid26515

And that does nothing to rectify your obvious intellectual dishonesty.

Quote: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.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addres...rtion-law/

When you have to stoop to Bell’s level and start calling people rapists, murderers, psychopaths, and monsters then I think it’s safe to say that you don’t know what you’re talking about. And yeah, it makes you sound like an incel. 
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.
And no, as I already told you, it also says "there's no longer any criminal liability for killing a wanted unborn baby less than 24 weeks gestation".

Never called anyone a rapist, murder, nor psychopath. Denying the right to life leaving you with no argument against slavery, rape, or murder, is not calling you such. Nor is saying an argument is psychopathic calling you such. Again, learn to read.
I did call you a monster...only after you had already called me creepy, etc. Tit for tat, deary.

Quote:However, if you did not win the last discussion, we still recommend claiming incessantly that you did.

Debates are like boxing matches. Try to make your opponent do the footwork so they get exhausted while you preserve your energy for the final blow Last Word."

Thanks for making your modus operandi crystal clear. Wink
Follows suit with this: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6613-p...l#pid26330
Least effort to argue your position, in the hopes that any opposition will "get exhausted".
Because god knows you're not landing any blows while arduously avoiding the vast majority of the arguments made. Rolleyes

And unlike you, I trust the intelligence of any reader, and feel no need to ever claim victory...or desperately try to poison the well about any last word (if you want it that bad, just ask).








The primary reason for its passage was to stake out New York’s position in favor both of preserving and expanding Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of access to abortion. And the way the law accomplishes that is to remove anything in New York law that could have been interpreted to limit abortion or to extend any protection to a child before birth.
...
New York already has one of the highest rates of abortion in the country. In New York City, about one in every three pregnancies ends in abortion.
...
Pro-life critics of the law are pointing out that the exception for health, which is not restricted to a physical definition and can be interpreted to cover psychological and emotional health, subject only to the medical judgment of the abortion provider, is broad enough to cover basically any possible late-term abortion. Insofar as the goal of the law was to guarantee access to abortion and remove restrictions on it, this is part and parcel of that goal. The new law does not contain any meaningful restriction that is likely to ever prevent an abortion.
...
However, some providers have acknowledged that they are willing to perform late-term abortions even absent medical necessity, though it is impossible to estimate how many late-term abortions fall under that description.
...
The law specifies that a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under New York’s medical licensing laws can perform an abortion and make the professional judgments described above. This means that it is possible that licensed nurse practitioners or physician assistants could perform abortions.
...
In addition to the provisions explicitly allowing abortion discussed above, the R.H.A. also modifies sections of the New York state penal code to eliminate references to abortion. Prior to these changes, the definition of homicide included causing the death of a person (defined as “a human being who has been born and is alive”) or of an unborn child if the woman has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks.

After the removal of abortion from the penal code, the existing definition of person as “a human being who has been born and is alive” remains—but because there is no longer any reference whatsoever to unborn children as possible victims of homicide, the law now effectively excludes them from the definition of “human person.”

Pro-life advocates have also pointed out that this change in the penal code means that domestic violence resulting in the loss of a pregnancy can no longer be prosecuted as severely as it has been. (It can of course still be prosecuted in the same way as any other assault against someone who is not pregnant.)
...
The R.H.A. repeals section 4164 of New York’s public health law. That section had provided that abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy had to be performed in a hospital, and that for abortions after 20 weeks a separate physician had to be on hand to provide medical care for any infant born alive during the procedure—which is a possibility, even if an unlikely one.

The now-repealed section also specified that a child born alive during an abortion procedure immediately enjoyed the protection of New York’s laws, and it required medical records to be kept of the efforts to care for the infant. Without section 4164, the public health law is now silent on the status of an infant born alive during an abortion.
- https://www.americamagazine.org/rha2019


That last bit specifically allows for infanticide, which is literally murder.
Reply
#48
Senate Democrats block GOP anti-infanticide bill spurred by Ralph Northam comments

An effort by Senate Republicans to enhance protections for newborns who survive abortions, spurred by New York and Virginia bills making it easier to perform late-term procedures, was blocked Monday by Democrats.

Sen. Ben Sasse, Nebraska Republican, asked for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to be approved by unanimous consent after an outcry over comments last week by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam decried on the right as pro-infanticide.

“There are only two sides of the debate on the floor debate tonight: You’re either for babies, or you’re defending infanticide,” said Mr. Sasse in his floor speech. “That is actually what the legislation is that’s before us.”


So we are now to a point where the people representing half the country will not protect children born alive. It's sick.
Reply
#49
"I voted against H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which is nothing more than a shameless attempt to intimidate doctors, spread misinformation about abortion, and decrease women’s access to healthcare.

Newborns already have the full spectrum of rights that any other person has — and these rights were enshrined in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002, which spells out requirements for doctors to care for newborn infants. H.R. 4712 attempts to amend this law by imposing new criminal and civil penalties for physicians who fail to adhere to specific standards of care.

There are several problems here. First, the “standard of care” laid out in this bill does not reflect current, evidence-based clinical practices, but instead seeks to legislate undue burdens on women’s health providers. That is why organizations such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose this bill.

Second, it always has been and always will be illegal to kill or harm newborn infants. Many federal and state laws already protect newborns, and any evidence of wrongdoing can and should be handled under current law. Insinuating that this is anything but the case is not just plainly false, it is reckless and irresponsible.

And finally, the new penalties that health care providers will be subject to for failure to comply with the new standard of care, which is not based in fact or science, include extreme criminal and civil penalties including five years in prison. In addition to placing undue burdens on physicians, as written, the bill text is extremely vague, which leaves questions for providers about how this bill will be enforced. The clear motive and effect of this bill is to intimidate healthcare providers and scare them out of providing abortion care, leading to restricted access for women — a result that I am firmly against.

This measure interferes directly in the practice of medicine and the healthcare decisions made by a woman and her physician. Congress has no business interfering in this private relationship. As a member of the House Pro-Choice Caucus and a strong defender of a woman’s right to choose, my bottom line here is this: women have a constitutional right to access abortion. This bill aims to undermine that right, and so I could not support it."---- https://medium.com/@teammoulton/vote-exp...acff24b277
Reply
#50
(Feb 6, 2019 07:23 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: "I voted against H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which is nothing more than a shameless attempt to intimidate doctors, spread misinformation about abortion, and decrease women’s access to healthcare.

Newborns already have the full spectrum of rights that any other person has — and these rights were enshrined in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002, which spells out requirements for doctors to care for newborn infants. H.R. 4712 attempts to amend this law by imposing new criminal and civil penalties for physicians who fail to adhere to specific standards of care."---- https://medium.com/@teammoulton/vote-exp...acff24b277

Decisions may continue to be made by medical professionals as to whether to resuscitate an infant based on medical efficacy, but not in regard to the legal standing of the patient. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive...ection_Act


IOW, the 2002 act still allows doctors to terminate a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion without any penalty.

This document is in response to a Congressional inquiry to provide more detailed information about infant deaths where the death certificate mentions the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) code P96.4—termination of pregnancy. Because this category includes spontaneous terminations of pregnancy and induced terminations of pregnancy, NCHS was asked to determine the number of infant deaths that are the result of a spontaneous termination vs. an induced termination.
...
Infant deaths for the 12 year period 2003 – 2014 assigned to code ICD-10 code P96.4 – Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn were reviewed. During this period there were 315,392 infant deaths and 49,126,572 live births. The purpose of this analysis is to provide some additional information regarding infant deaths with this cause of death code. This category includes both spontaneous terminations of pregnancy and induced terminations of pregnancy. Analysis of the text as reported by the cause-of-death certifier show that of 588 deaths with mention of P96.4, 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


That is SINCE the 2002 act, and if even ONE baby born alive that could have survived is killed (infanticide), that's one too many in a modern, civilized society.
Doctors need to be intimidated from committing infanticide. And anyone who doesn't think so is a callous bastard.

Quote:In addition to placing undue burdens on physicians, as written, the bill text is extremely vague, which leaves questions for providers about how this bill will be enforced.

Bullshit. It literally says that an infant born alive should receive the exact same care as any other infant born alive, and includes hospital care. That is neither vague nor onerous....unless you're intent on killing babies.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)