Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[Mountain Man]

THAT is what the right wants to make this about - but the fact is no one on the left is talking about killing healthy babies outside the womb.

So I repeat - for the fourth time in this thread: does anyone here think 58% of the population of the United States, probably including many of your friends, neighbors, and even family, are functioning sociopaths?

The fact that they support abortion at any stage of pregnancy doesn't do a lot to convince me otherwise.

Here's what the bill in question actually stipulates:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

...

“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive:

“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—

“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and

“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

“(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...-bill/130/text

The bill, as far as I can tell, does not legally require heroic measures for a child born with severe and life-threatening deformities

[Cow Poke]

The fact that they support abortion at any stage of pregnancy doesn't do a lot to convince me otherwise.

And this exchange between Tran and Gilbert regarding Virginia's HB 2491.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?” GOP Delegate and committee chairman Todd Gilbert asked Tran.

“Through the third trimester,” Tran responded. “The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks. … I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.”

Gilbert then pressed her: “Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth – she has physical signs that she's about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion? … She's dilating.”

“Mr. Chairman,” Tran responded, “that would be a decision that the doctor – the physician – and the women would make at that point.

“I understand that,” Gilbert said. “I'm asking if your bill allows that.”

“My bill would allow that. Yes,” Tran answered.

That, of course, would only be MINUTES away from killing a delivered live baby. Note - this is regarding the mental health of the woman, not the physical condition of the child.

[carpedm9587]

Can you please provide a succinct and clear explanation for why you're asking this question?

thanks

58% Of the population of the United States is "pro-choice." They are arguing for abortion laws. I would like to know if those on the right - or at least those who are "pro-life" think that it is possible that 58% of the population of this country are functioning sociopaths: people born without a moral compass who do what is considered evil without a trace of conscience.

[carpedm9587]

The fact that they support abortion at any stage of pregnancy doesn't do a lot to convince me otherwise.

So your answer to my question is "yes, the 58% of the population of the U.S. that is pro-choice compromises functioning sociopaths." Is that correct?

Here's what the bill in question actually stipulates:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

...

“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive:

“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—

“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and

“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

“(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...-bill/130/text

The bill, as far as I can tell, does not legally require heroic measures for a child born with severe and life-threatening deformities

No - it does not. Nor should it. We already have laws on the books about medical practice that applies. The first two lines affirm the living child is a person - with all of the existing protections of law. There are laws on the books about when medical intervention is required and not required - and a legal system for engaging those laws. We no more need laws to deal with such cases as the specific result of an abortion than we need laws for the specific case of a motorcycle accident, construction accident, stroke, or anything else that might happen to a human person.

There will always be those cases that are "borderline" and life will continue as it always has: the hospital, doctors, family, friends, or anyone who knows of the situation is free to file suit t protect the child if they think reasonable care could be taken and the life saved.

This bill you appear to be so outraged about is pretty clear: if the child is born and alive - it is a person with all of the protections of existing law.

[Cow Poke]

58% Of the population of the United States is "pro-choice." They are arguing for abortion laws. I would like to know if those on the right - or at least those who are "pro-life" think that it is possible that 58% of the population of this country are functioning sociopaths: people born without a moral compass who do what is considered evil without a trace of conscience.

That's what I was thinking you were asking -- and it's, quite honestly, a dumb question. They don't have to be "functioning sociopaths" - they could just be very badly informed. The SCIENCE!!!!

[carpedm9587]

And this exchange between Tran and Gilbert regarding Virginia's HB 2491.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?” GOP Delegate and committee chairman Todd Gilbert asked Tran.

“Through the third trimester,” Tran responded. “The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks. … I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.”

Gilbert then pressed her: “Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth – she has physical signs that she's about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion? … She's dilating.”

“Mr. Chairman,” Tran responded, “that would be a decision that the doctor – the physician – and the women would make at that point.

“I understand that,” Gilbert said. “I'm asking if your bill allows that.”

“My bill would allow that. Yes,” Tran answered.

That, of course, would only be MINUTES away from killing a delivered live baby. Note - this is regarding the mental health of the woman, not the physical condition of the child.

On this we agree. I missed the "mental" qualifier. The "mental health" clause is morally disturbing to me. If the infant is viable, and has been carried to term, abortion is immoral, IMO. Frankly, as I have said before, pretty much all abortion is morally repugnant to me. There are only a single circumstance in which I see it as morally permitted: The fetus has essentially no chance of survival and the life of the woman is at risk if the pregnancy is not terminated.

I don't think any other abortion is moral.

[Bill the Cat]

Such absolutes are good for the optics, but don't hold up under scrutiny. Yes, if you leave a healthy child to die after birth by not feeding it and not caring for it, you're a monster and the law will treat you as the murderer you are. But if a child is born with half it's heart protruding from it's chest, hydro-cephalic, and with severe deformities to its limbs, the situation is different. As painful as it may be, a parent has to ask "what kind of life will this child have if I intervene with all of the arsenal of the modern medical world?" Yes, the heart can be put back in and may keep beating. But with hydrocephalia, the child will have little or no cognitive function. With severe deformities it will have little ability to care for itself. It will live with little/no quality of life while draining resources that could keep other children in the family fed and housed and placing a massive drain on the medical community. Every situation has a cost/benefit. Sometimes, the humane thing to do is let nature take its course and let the child die naturally, with no intervention.

My neighbor recently had to make this decision. After weeks of trying to keep their baby alive, they realized the next step was to amputate both legs (they were becoming gangrenous) and even if that worked, the lack of blood to much of the body had severely damaged the brain, so the baby would "grow up" a limp of living human flesh in a bed with no responses and no detectable cognitive function. They ceased all medical intervention, and held their child until it passed. And they grieved.

So, with due deference to Mr. Sasse - he's wrong. Sometimes the compassionate thing to do is nothing - and to let an infant die. My heart goes out to every parent faced with this choice. It is my hope that it is a very rare thing.

Meanwhile, I support the blocking of the bill. We already have laws on the books protecting human life from random killing. I don't see the need to add yet another one.

You're using examples of after all reasonable care has been exhausted situations to excuse blocking a law that would protect people like Gianna Jensen.

[Mountain Man]

So your answer to my question is "yes, the 58% of the population of the U.S. that is pro-choice compromises functioning sociopaths." Is that correct?

If 58% people who believe, among other things, that it should be legal to kill an unborn child (or even a recently born child!) simply because the mother considers it an "inconvenience" then you would have a hard time making the case that they're not sociopaths.

No - it does not. Nor should it. We already have laws on the books about medical practice that applies. The first two lines affirm the living child is a person - with all of the existing protections of law. There are laws on the books about when medical intervention is required and not required - and a legal system for engaging those laws. We no more need laws to deal with such cases as the specific result of an abortion than we need laws for the specific case of a motorcycle accident, construction accident, stroke, or anything else that might happen to a human person.

There will always be those cases that are "borderline" and life will continue as it always has: the hospital, doctors, family, friends, or anyone who knows of the situation is free to file suit t protect the child if they think reasonable care could be taken and the life saved.

This bill you appear to be so outraged about is pretty clear: if the child is born and alive - it is a person with all of the protections of existing law.

First of all, who's "outraged"? And secondly, I'm not entirely clear why you oppose the bill in question. Yes, we do need such a law because there are documented cases of a "botched" abortion in which the child is simply set aside and left to die, or, more disturbingly, the doctor employs other gruesome means to finish the job. To my knowledge, this is not actually illegal.

[carpedm9587]

If 58% people who believe, among other things, that it should be legal to kill an unborn child (or even a recently born child!) simply because the mother considers it an "inconvenience" then you would have a hard time making the case that they're not sociopaths.

No one that I know of is arguing the emphasized part, and both this law and existing laws preclude it, so I have no response. And I have a fairly simple way to show they are not necessarily sociopaths: if they do not believe it is a human life - then they are not meeting the definition of sociopaths. That is essentially my point.

But your insistence that they are tells me something about the probability of a reasonable discussion about this issue with you. If you are ready/willing/able to dismiss 58% of the U.S. population as "functioning sociopaths," it suggests rational discourse is not possible. I'll leave you to it.

First of all, who's "outraged"?

There appears to be a great deal of outrage being expressed here. If you aren't outraged...I'll take your word for it.

And secondly, I'm not entirely clear why you oppose the bill in question. Yes, we do need such a law because there are documented cases of a "botched" abortion in which the child is simply set aside and left to die, or, more disturbingly, the doctor employs other gruesome means to finish the job. To my knowledge, this is not actually illegal.

Your knowledge needs expansion. The first two lines of the bill clearly make this distinction. So I oppose the bill on the basis of "unnecessary law." We already have laws dealing with this.

[carpedm9587]

You're using examples of after all reasonable care has been exhausted situations to excuse blocking a law that would protect people like Gianna Jensen.

My rationale is simple: the abortion law being discussed acknowledges "person" status of any child that survives the abortion attempt."

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

We already have laws protecting people, and laws about the appropriate and inappropriate use of medicines. Unless you can tell me why this particular circumstance creates an exception to those laws that requires a special law, there is no need for superfluous laws.

[Roy]

And I suppose we could have a discussion about what exactly constitutes a "combat situation", but that's beside the point, which is that, as far as I know, drone strikes, unlike abortions, are never ordered with the intent of killing innocent lives.

As far as you know isn't very far.

This has been mentioned here on multiple occasions, in threads you have participated in, but clearly hasn't penetrated your alt-right fantasy bubble.

[carpedm9587]

That's what I was thinking you were asking -- and it's, quite honestly, a dumb question. They don't have to be "functioning sociopaths" - they could just be very badly informed. The SCIENCE!!!!

My point, CP, is that the pro-life people tend to point to the pro-choice people and label them "evil" and "despicable" and "murders" and "killers" and all the rest. The left is just as quick to jump on the right. But 58% of the population is not sociopathic. The very idea is irrational. So the conclusion is: they do not believe they are killing children. If they did - I'm reasonably sure they wouldn't. Our starting point HAS to be "they think they are doing a good - perhaps I should listen and see if somehow we can achieve the "good" both sides want?" Instead, the approach is denigrate, vilify, and attack. If you don't think so - read your thread title.

Abortion is a difficult issue. It is a unique issue. It deals with two, intertwined, lives. It fights to find a balance where it is almost impossible to HAVE a balance. If you emphasize the child - you de-emphasize the woman. If you emphasize the woman - you de-emphasize the child.

This war has raged for pretty much my entire life - with no signs of abating. If the right successfully has Roe vs. Wade overturned, the left will rise up in a tide, eventually displace the judges that made that decision, or perhaps pad the court, and shift the decision back again. Then the right will continue their fight...and on and on and on. It will never end. And for the entire duration of the battle - infants/children will continue to die.

A definition of insanity is "continually doing the same thing expecting a different outcome." I suggest that a fair percentage of our population meets that definition for this topic. What is happening is essentially insane - unreasonable - irrational. But the two sides are completely entrenched - so the carnage will continue, each side claiming the high road...

...while children continue to die...

[Mountain Man]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

So an Obama-era policy that was largely denounced by the conservative press.

[lilpixieofterror]

LPOT's justification for mass infanticide:

Note that dishonest Roy leaves out the details of the conversation and simply misrepresents what I actually said to support his buddies and their death cult. Another day, another famous Roy distraction.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why should I? That has nothing to do with your false claim that drone strikes weren't like "killing an innocent human life before it has even left the womb".

Grow some cojones and admit you were wrong, rather than trying to dodge responsibility for your falsehoods.

P.S. here.

Dishonest Roy distracts from his death cult by trying to dig up out of context quotes. Anything to support your death cult, right?