Ohio bill and ectopic pregnancies?

[simplicio]

Er, weren't you the one that pointed out Becker might have grounds for the idea? And they don't 'rip apart' the Fallopian tube -that's utter nonsense.

Thirty years ago few babies under 24 weeks survived at all - now it happens all the time. Who's to say what they might be able to do in the future?

Honestly, inverting the tube into the uterus might someday be an option - who knows? Why shouldn't the law anticipate advances in medical science?

Yeah, click bait.
What's new about it? Laws against abortion predate and have a longer history than Roe. And yes, doctors aren't big on life sentences - cuts down the murder rate in every other area, kinda silly to assume it won't for baby murder.

Are you even pro-life?

Yes I am pro life. But I do not support each and every idea coming down the pike, especially when I see them as counter productive to the pro life cause. And many in the pro life community find this bill counterproductive.

I suspect this is part of a strategy to flood statehouses with anti abortion legislation to force a Supreme Court case which bundles all the state laws. I do not believe that is effective.

Becker did cite two cases in support of his view. I am not a doctor, but it seems that the medical profession, including those who specialize in women's reproductive health are not impressed with the science. This bill addresses insurance reimbursements for such procedures, guaranteeing a showdown in the courts.

I think it telling that you ignored the comment about the principle of double effect, which presents ethical criteria used for decision making.

Are you pro life, or merely anti abortion? The two are not identical.

Yes, laws against abortion do predate Roe, and have a long history. But so does the desire for abortion as well as the actual procedure. Abortions have existed even where they are illegal.

Bottom line, I do not think the pro life cause is advanced in any way by this law, and I think it paints pro life Christians an a bad light, as anti science.

In some cases the fallopian tube is removed or irreparably harmed in the "solving" the problem of the extra uterine pregnancy.

[Ana Dragule]

Yes I am pro life. But I do not support each and every idea coming down the pike, especially when I see them as counter productive to the pro life cause. And many in the pro life community find this bill counterproductive.

I suspect this is part of a strategy to flood statehouses with anti abortion legislation to force a Supreme Court case which bundles all the state laws. I do not believe that is effective.

Becker did cite two cases in support of his view. I am not a doctor, but it seems that the medical profession, including those who specialize in women's reproductive health are not impressed with the science. This bill addresses insurance reimbursements for such procedures, guaranteeing a showdown in the courts.

I think it telling that you ignored the comment about the principle of double effect, which presents ethical criteria used for decision making.

Are you pro life, or merely anti abortion? The two are not identical.

Yes, laws against abortion do predate Roe, and have a long history. But so does the desire for abortion as well as the actual procedure. Abortions have existed even where they are illegal.

Bottom line, I do not think the pro life cause is advanced in any way by this law, and I think it paints pro life Christians an a bad light, as anti science.

In some cases the fallopian tube is removed or irreparably harmed in the "solving" the problem of the extra uterine pregnancy.

In the pro-life movement, only anti-abortion is “pro-life” and all other life supporting measures are something else that is not to be confused with pro-life.

That said, if it allowed for re-implantation “where possible”, then this might not be so bad.

[Teallaura]

The pro-life organization I most closely follow maintains that the bill does do exactly what the Guardian claims. I trust their expertise. It's not hard to imagine the actual genesis of the bill; one pro-life author asserted that ectopic pregnancies should not be removed in the Federalist several months ago (then retracted her claim after doctors informed her she was out to lunch): https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/19...-mothers-life/

That's nice -I prefer primary to secondary sources when available. And no, it doesn't - the statute doesn't read that way.

[simplicio]

In the pro-life movement, only anti-abortion is “pro-life” and all other life supporting measures are something else that is not to be confused with pro-life.

That said, if it allowed for re-implantation “where possible”, then this might not be so bad.

Interesting, as well as surprising.

Some see prolife as encompassing antiabortion, but also including more. The Old Testament admonition to "Choose life", was preceded by the observation that it was also in the heart. When we discuss human life, it is the whole person which has dignity, and the image of G-d. Life includes much more than the initial nine months of gestation.

Implantation, where possible is a red herring. It does not exist within medical practice, reality. The intersection of morality and legislation is complex, simplistic bromides are counter productive.

I see the bill as counterproductive, not helping the prolife cause. In fact, I see it as harmful in the long view.