My email to the Virginia Governer

[Vergie]

I just wanted to try to help everyone in the Senate make an informed decision about the new legislation regarding mandating ultrasounds before pregnancy termination. As a 4th year medical student I have had the pleasure of working with quite a few doctors over the last couple years. If you were to ask any physician about current guidelines I can pretty much guarantee that Uptodate.com is where they would refer you.

I have quoted the guidelines regarding abortion on Uptodate as follows: "physicians performing any uterine evacuation procedure should obtain a comprehensive patient history, including any complications during previous similar procedures. A complete physical examination should be performed with special attention to the uterine size and position, and obtain confirmation of pregnancy (eg, urine or serum human chorionic gonadotropin assay, documentation of fetal cardiac activity, or sonographic visualization of an intrauterine pregnancy). The gestational age should be determined by both menstrual history and bimanual examination; ultrasound examination is useful if there is any uncertainty and at advanced gestational ages"

One of the important points these guidelines show is that there are many ways to skin a cat. For example, if it's an early pregnancy, it will probably be pretty easy to determine gestational age based on menstrual history, hcg levels, etc. If the gestational age is closer to 12 weeks it might be worth it to get an ultrasound to see exactly how far things are to help determine exactly what procedure to use. The point I am trying to make, is that no specific case is exactly the same. That is why we call it a PRACTICE. There is no need to mandate an unnecessary procedure. It's very insulting that our government feels the need to tell us how to do our job. I assure members of the senate that we physicians are perfectly capable of providing our patients with all the information they need to help them make an informed decision.

Thank you for your time,

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Apollyon]

Did you go hard copy or electronic? I ask because, if you emailed, it will go right in the trash. (And that is irrespective of the content.)

 

[Vergie]

it looked like this: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm
Feel free to add your own thoughts as well 🙂

The Alabama email was to Senator Coleman's secretary after I talked to her on the phone for a bit. Senator Coleman was the only one who voted against the bill in the Senate heath committee.

 

[Cathyran]

I'm pretty sure he already came out against this bill.

 

[Libertas]

Doesn't sound like the writing of a well educated person. And how is this anesthesia related? Hah.

I just wanted to try to help everyone in the Senate make an informed decision about the new legislation regarding mandating ultrasounds before pregnancy termination. As a 4th year medical student I have had the pleasure of working with quite a few doctors over the last couple years. If you were to ask any physician about current guidelines I can pretty much guarantee that Uptodate.com is where they would refer you.

I have quoted the guidelines regarding abortion on Uptodate as follows: "physicians performing any uterine evacuation procedure should obtain a comprehensive patient history, including any complications during previous similar procedures. A complete physical examination should be performed with special attention to the uterine size and position, and obtain confirmation of pregnancy (eg, urine or serum human chorionic gonadotropin assay, documentation of fetal cardiac activity, or sonographic visualization of an intrauterine pregnancy). The gestational age should be determined by both menstrual history and bimanual examination; ultrasound examination is useful if there is any uncertainty and at advanced gestational ages"

One of the important points these guidelines show is that there are many ways to skin a cat. For example, if it's an early pregnancy, it will probably be pretty easy to determine gestational age based on menstrual history, hcg levels, etc. If the gestational age is closer to 12 weeks it might be worth it to get an ultrasound to see exactly how far things are to help determine exactly what procedure to use. The point I am trying to make, is that no specific case is exactly the same. That is why we call it a PRACTICE. There is no need to mandate an unnecessary procedure. It's very insulting that our government feels the need to tell us how to do our job. I assure members of the senate that we physicians are perfectly capable of providing our patients with all the information they need to help them make an informed decision.

Thank you for your time,

Thoughts?

 

[Gern Blansten]

Using the phrase "many ways to skin a cat" may not have been the best choice of words. The double entendre jumped off the page for me.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The point of the U/S may not be medical; it may be political.
They want the mother to see the baby in the uterus and cancel the abortion

 

[pgg]

The point of the U/S may not be medical; it may be political.
They want the mother to see the baby in the uterus and cancel the abortion

May? 😉 It's entirely political. And cynical. And intrusively repugnantly abhorrent.

They're attempting to make "go submit yourself to an assault" a prerequisite to receiving medical care.


Much more to come if frothy-fecal-matter wins the GOP nomination.

 

[BLADEMDA]

May? 😉 It's entirely political. And cynical. And intrusively repugnantly abhorrent.

They're attempting to make "go submit yourself to an assault" a prerequisite to receiving medical care.


Much more to come if frothy-fecal-matter wins the GOP nomination.

Don't hold back your opinion. Santorum is running a far right campaign trying to get the nomination.

Abortion is hotly debated subject. Some would argue the killing of a fetus is murder;hence, you should see the victim before killing him/her. They want to make it very personal.

 

[countingdays]

May? 😉 It's entirely political. And cynical. And intrusively repugnantly abhorrent.

They're attempting to make "go submit yourself to an assault" a prerequisite to receiving medical care.


Much more to come if frothy-fecal-matter wins the GOP nomination.

Who told you that the ultrasound is abhorrent, the pre-aborted fetus? I doubt an ultrasound will be the worst thing to happen to that baby that week.

 

[pgg]

Don't hold back your opinion. Santorum is running a far right campaign trying to get the nomination.

And he'll lose to Obama.

I've said it before here, the Republicans learned the wrong lesson from the 2008 Palin trainwreck ... somehow they think the reason they lost was because they weren't far right ENOUGH, that they didn't pander to the religious right ENOUGH.

If Santorum gets the nomination, I will vote for Obama. Santorum is THAT morally repugnant to me. He is a bad human being.

Who told you that the ultrasound is abhorrent, the pre-aborted fetus? I doubt an ultrasound will be the worst thing to happen to that baby that week.

Who told you that a wad of cells at 8 weeks gestation is a human being? I understand that some people choose to believe that a sentient human being with rights begins to exist at the instant of conception, despite no physical or rational basis for such a belief.

Never mind - there isn't much point in debating that belief.

But that's OK, because it's totally beside the point: the belief or disbelief that "life" begins at conception does not change the United States legal reality - and that reality is that women have the right to choose to have an abortion. This is settled law, and no legislature, state or federal, has any business imposing financial or emotional roadblocks in an effort to influence those decisions.

It's an obvious and transparently cynical attempt to dissuade a woman from having an abortion by subjecting her to an additional traumatic procedure, an additional expense, and an additional delay in the hopes that she'll carry her wad-o-cells to term.

Requiring a citizen to subject themselves to unnecessary, invasive medical testing in order to exercise a well established right, is contemptible and certainly won't stand up to judicial review.

Again this isn't a matter of opinion or belief. A woman's right to an elective abortion is not only settled law, but but it was settled emphatically with strict scrutiny as the standard for judicial review. Not rational basis or intermediate scrutiny, strict.

Meaning that any government imposed restriction of the established right must serve a compelling government interest, AND be narrowly tailored, AND do so through the least restrictive means.


If the Virginia state legislature passed a law requiring black people to undergo a colonoscopy before being permitted to attend public schools with white people, it would be just as crassly inappropriate and offensive.

If the Virginia state legislature passed a law requiring women to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being permitted to vote, it would be just as ridiculous.

 

[Mman]

But that's OK, because it's totally beside the point: the belief or disbelief that "life" begins at conception does not change the United States legal reality - and that reality is that women have the right to choose to have an abortion. This is settled law, and no legislature, state or federal, has any business imposing financial or emotional roadblocks in an effort to influence those decisions.

Has it been settled when life begins? It obviously isn't at 40 weeks gestation. What about when the fetus is viable? That keeps moving back as technology advances.

 

[sevoflurane]

If Santorum gets the nomination, I will vote for Obama. Santorum is THAT morally repugnant to me. He is a bad human being.

I'm with you. I can't believe a person like Santorum has this much steam at this point in the GOP. That is one scary dude. As much as it pains me to say this, it will be Obama over him ANY day. Someone so far off to the right is not good for the America I know.

I'm starting to think Obama has this one.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I'm with you. I can't believe a person like Santorum has this much steam at this point in the GOP. That is one scary dude. As much as it pains me to say this, it will be Obama over him ANY day. Someone so far off to the right is not good for the America I know.

I'm starting to think Obama has this one.

Romney will win the nomination then likely lose to Obama in a very close election.

 

[pgg]

Romney will win the nomination then likely lose to Obama in a very close election.

Yeah, yesterday was a good day for Romney. I wouldn't count him out vs Obama.

I don't think the next 8 months will be brimming with good economic news.

Obama will have to work a lot harder this time to get the vote out.

There are a lot of so-called "socially liberal / fiscally conservative" independents who are dissatisfied with his failure to keep a number of his non-economic campaign promises.


If Romney gets the nomination and can keep the freepers in check, not pick another Sarah Palin as a running mate, he can win.

 

[pgg]

Has it been settled when life begins? It obviously isn't at 40 weeks gestation. What about when the fetus is viable? That keeps moving back as technology advances.

There are (existing) restrictions to abortion that are entirely consistent with R v W. There isn't a state in the Union where a woman can go get an elective abortion at 35 weeks.

Date of viability is a topic worthy of discussion. Of course, that has nothing to do with the law being debated.

 

[countingdays]

And he'll lose to Obama.

I've said it before here, the Republicans learned the wrong lesson from the 2008 Palin trainwreck ... somehow they think the reason they lost was because they weren't far right ENOUGH, that they didn't pander to the religious right ENOUGH.

If Santorum gets the nomination, I will vote for Obama. Santorum is THAT morally repugnant to me. He is a bad human being.




Who told you that a wad of cells at 8 weeks gestation is a human being? I understand that some people choose to believe that a sentient human being with rights begins to exist at the instant of conception, despite no physical or rational basis for such a belief.

Never mind - there isn't much point in debating that belief.

But that's OK, because it's totally beside the point: the belief or disbelief that "life" begins at conception does not change the United States legal reality - and that reality is that women have the right to choose to have an abortion. This is settled law, and no legislature, state or federal, has any business imposing financial or emotional roadblocks in an effort to influence those decisions.

It's an obvious and transparently cynical attempt to dissuade a woman from having an abortion by subjecting her to an additional traumatic procedure, an additional expense, and an additional delay in the hopes that she'll carry her wad-o-cells to term.

Requiring a citizen to subject themselves to unnecessary, invasive medical testing in order to exercise a well established right, is contemptible and certainly won't stand up to judicial review.

Again this isn't a matter of opinion or belief. A woman's right to an elective abortion is not only settled law, but but it was settled emphatically with strict scrutiny as the standard for judicial review. Not rational basis or intermediate scrutiny, strict.

Meaning that any government imposed restriction of the established right must serve a compelling government interest, AND be narrowly tailored, AND do so through the least restrictive means.


If the Virginia state legislature passed a law requiring black people to undergo a colonoscopy before being permitted to attend public schools with white people, it would be just as crassly inappropriate and offensive.

If the Virginia state legislature passed a law requiring women to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being permitted to vote, it would be just as ridiculous.

This is a 20 week old/abortable fetus, hardly a ball of cells.

 

[pgg]

This is a 20 week old/abortable fetus, hardly a ball of cells.

Do you really want to argue with emotional pictures instead of reasoned words and facts?

I can win there too. 🙂

The Supreme Court ruled on this issue a long time ago, and Virginia passed a law that clearly and transparently attempts to thwart the spirit, intent, and letter of a Supreme Court ruling.

If you enjoy living in a land where the rule of law means something, you shouldn't be OK with this, even if you disagree with some or all of the original R v W decision.


This sort of behavior is unfortunately common when cities or states disagree with federal rulings they don't like. Look at the behavior of Chicago and Washington DC since McDonald and Heller, for example.

And of course, the photo above. Local yokels tried similar shenanigans when they had "moral" opposition to desegregation and resisted the Court's ruling. Hazel Massery would fit right in with Virginia lawmakers. They have a lot in common: presumed moral superiority and blatant disregard for the rule of law.

 

[Gern Blansten]

There isn't a state in the Union where a woman can go get an elective abortion at 35 weeks.

Maybe you should add the word "legal" to that statement. Dr Gosnell operated clinics in Pennsylvania and Louisiana where you could actually get a full term abortion and in many cases deliver a term live baby that they would then kill.

Warning: Content is graphic and disturbing

http://open.salon.com/blog/xylocopa/2011/01/30/doctor_kermit_gosnells_little_shop_of_horrors

I am hopeful that this guys clinics are the rare exception, but reading these details of his "House of Horrors" would hopefully upset even the most staunch pro choice advocates.

 

[Mman]

There are (existing) restrictions to abortion that are entirely consistent with R v W. There isn't a state in the Union where a woman can go get an elective abortion at 35 weeks.

Date of viability is a topic worthy of discussion. Of course, that has nothing to do with the law being debated.

I'm pointing out that the entire discussion of abortion that we have in this country is in a big gray area. It isn't cut and dry. There are lots of laws that aren't cut and dry in this country. You made a fairly flippant remark about life beginning or not at conception. I'm pointing out that this country in a legal sense hasn't determined when life begins. It isn't at birth. And the idea of when a fetus becomes viable is a moving target that we don't always know the answer too..

Unlike most people in this country, I actually don't have a strong feeling one way or the other in terms of abortion as a political issue. I just find the rhetoric on each side to be amusing at times. It's 2 sides of an issue and people will talk right past each other without acknowledging the points of the other side.

 

[pgg]

Maybe you should add the word "legal" to that statement. Dr Gosnell operated clinics in Pennsylvania and Louisiana where you could actually get a full term abortion and in many cases deliver a term live baby that they would then kill.

I'm not sure how criminal activity really applies to the abortion debate.

It's akin to pointing to felons robbing banks with machineguns as a rationale for banning all handguns. Multiple existing and non-controversial laws are being violated (a prohibited person with a firearm, possesion of select-fire guns presumably not properly registered, and armed robbery), and this is somehow supposed to fuel an argument to extend restrictions to wholly different circumstances.

Or pointing to tax evasion by pseudo-religious-but-not-really groups as a rationale for revoking the tax exempt status of all churches.

Or pointing to a violent riots at a sporting event as a rationale for limiting the right of others to peacably assemble at that same venue.

You don't restrict a group's well-established individual rights on the basis of some individual's criminal behavior. The fact that someone, somewhere is illegally performing elective abortions of 35 weekers is not at all an argument for banning elective abortions at 10 weeks, or requiring an extra ultrasound at 8 weeks.

Yes, aborting a 35 week fetus or killing a delivered full term baby are crimes and bad.

I'm pointing out that the entire discussion of abortion that we have in this country is in a big gray area.

There are gray areas, but they're not ALL gray.

Aborting a 35 week fetus is not a gray area. Neither is aborting a 10 week fetus. Somewhere around 20-24 weeks, depending on locale, NICU capabilities, and luck the fetus becomes viable and a reasonable argument could be made that purely elective terminations shouldn't be permitted.

Requiring ALL women with pregnancies at ALL gestational ages to submit to a medically unnecessary, uncomfortable, not-free exam that delays their desired or medically indicated procedure is NOT a gray area. Again, strict scrutiny applies here:
1) a compelling government interest - the "interest" being furthered by this law is to dissuade women from having abortions; this alone very likely wouldn't stand up to strict scrutiny
2) narrowly tailored - this law is very clearly NOT narrowly tailored; slam-dunk failure here
3) least restrictive means - this law is NOT; another slam-dunk failure

I'm not making this up; this is settled law. This is legislative abuse and political grandstanding, an attempt to impose one group's moral beliefs upon another in clear and direct conflict with a Supreme Court ruling.

It isn't cut and dry. There are lots of laws that aren't cut and dry in this country. You made a fairly flippant remark about life beginning or not at conception. I'm pointing out that this country in a legal sense hasn't determined when life begins. It isn't at birth. And the idea of when a fetus becomes viable is a moving target that we don't always know the answer too..

You're right; in the United States, the legal beginning of life clearly isn't at birth (existing law makes this clear), but it isn't at conception either (existing law makes this clear also). There's room to discuss when that line should be placed.

But do you not see how this law, which applies to ALL gestational ages, and is intended to emotionally influence a woman to change her mind about the procedure, is inappropriate and in direct conflict with R v W?

Does it not concern you that a state is attempting to flagrantly defy a Supreme Court ruling?

Unlike most people in this country, I actually don't have a strong feeling one way or the other in terms of abortion as a political issue. I just find the rhetoric on each side to be amusing at times. It's 2 sides of an issue and people will talk right past each other without acknowledging the points of the other side.

Unfortunately the pro-life side tends to want to ban all abortions. There's not a lot of gray to their position. They make emotional arguments instead of factual ones (eg, posting photos of cute ultrasounds without any reference to development, viability, sentience, etc). You WILL find many on that side who want to ban ALL abortions.

Most people on the pro-choice side acknowledge that aborting a viable fetus is bad and should only be permitted under extraordinarily compelling circumstances, mostly related to threats to maternal health. You WON'T find many pro-choice people who want to legalize ALL abortions. Seems to me that there's greater recognition of gray on this side.



And you might be surprised to learn that I personally frown on and disapprove of abortion on general principle. But, it's not my decision to make. I don't have a compelling moral or scientific basis to attempt to impose my bias on another person, and I don't think the government does either.

What upsets me about this particular topic (Virginia's law, not abortion in general) is its flagrant disregard for a Supreme Court's ruling, and its transparently cynical real goal: to impose the State Senate's moral majority opinion under the cover and disguise of some kind of fabricated medical prudence. Such ignorant politicizing of medicine should offend and concern all physicians, regardless of their feelings on abortion.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I'm not sure how criminal activity really applies to the abortion debate.

All I suggested was a clarifier for your original statement which said:

There isn't a state in the Union where a woman can go get an elective abortion at 35 weeks.

As stated, this is not a true statement. With the addition of the word "legal," it becomes a true statement. The clinic in question was operable for at least 30 years and is proof that, if you look in the right places, you can get an abortion at 35 weeks.

I didn't really follow your other logic about machine guns and criminals, since I never alluded to anything similar to that. Just clarifying from a purely grammatical sense.

 

[pgg]

As stated, this is not a true statement. With the addition of the word "legal," it becomes a true statement. The clinic in question was operable for at least 30 years and is proof that, if you look in the right places, you can get an abortion at 35 weeks.

OK, fair enough.

I didn't really follow your other logic about machine guns and criminals, since I never alluded to anything similar to that. Just clarifying from a purely grammatical sense.

The point was that the existence of criminals breaking laws doesn't justify making more stuff illegal.

Especially when an individual's civil rights or right to self-determination are in question.

 

[Gern Blansten]

The point was that the existence of criminals breaking laws doesn't justify making more stuff illegal.

Agree. I never intended to imply that.

 

[Mman]

What upsets me about this particular topic (Virginia's law, not abortion in general) is its flagrant disregard for a Supreme Court's ruling, and its transparently cynical real goal: to impose the State Senate's moral majority opinion under the cover and disguise of some kind of fabricated medical prudence. Such ignorant politicizing of medicine should offend and concern all physicians, regardless of their feelings on abortion.

It is my understanding that everything not directly laid out in the constitution is delegated to the individual states to handle. But you have a problem with a state attempting to pass a law just because the Supreme Court had a ruling the other direction? The Supreme Court has overturned it's own opinions in the past and previous opinions of the court are not to be taken as everlasting unfallible tenets of law.

Each state can pass whatever law they want. If somebody wants to challenge it, they are free to. I don't live in Virginia. I don't care what laws they want to pass.

 

[Apollyon]

The Supreme Court has overturned it's own opinions in the past and previous opinions of the court are not to be taken as everlasting unfallible tenets of law.

Are you familiar with "stare decisis"? It means "to stand on the decision". The Supreme Court has maintained much, much, much more frequently than it has reversed itself, and, although literally you are correct, previous opinions are intended to be everlasting unfallible tenets of law, but just until something better comes along. However, since there are elements of common law (such as torts) that date back to the 1200s, and American/British jurisprudence is set on case law, to think that it is so easily dispensed with or is as variable as the wind is misapplied. Otherwise, every session would have them discussing, for example, Roe vs Wade.

 

[pgg]

Each state can pass whatever law they want. If somebody wants to challenge it, they are free to. I don't live in Virginia. I don't care what laws they want to pass.

So you wouldn't care if Arizona legalized slavery and started rounding up people who looked Mexican? And it's all cool because the courts are there to hear challenges (never mind that the law was passed and enacted in defiance of previous court rulings)?

 

[Mman]

So you wouldn't care if Arizona legalized slavery and started rounding up people who looked Mexican? And it's all cool because the courts are there to hear challenges (never mind that the law was passed and enacted in defiance of previous court rulings)?

I haven't set foot in Arizona in over a decade and have no plans on setting foot again in Arizona any time soon. It's none of my business what laws they choose to pass. If they attempt to legalize slavery, I doubt I'd be going back and I doubt the law would be upheld so not my problem.

 

[Mman]

Are you familiar with "stare decisis"? It means "to stand on the decision". The Supreme Court has maintained much, much, much more frequently than it has reversed itself, and, although literally you are correct, previous opinions are intended to be everlasting unfallible tenets of law, but just until something better comes along. However, since there are elements of common law (such as torts) that date back to the 1200s, and American/British jurisprudence is set on case law, to think that it is so easily dispensed with or is as variable as the wind is misapplied. Otherwise, every session would have them discussing, for example, Roe vs Wade.

Agreed. But my point stands. The makeup of the Court shifts over time between liberal and conservative (relatively speaking) and the mood of the Court on any one issue is very dependent on who the justices are. There are laws passed all the time around the country that are contrary to one opinion or another of the Court in the past in some fashion.

 

[pgg]

I haven't set foot in Arizona in over a decade and have no plans on setting foot again in Arizona any time soon. It's none of my business what laws they choose to pass. If they attempt to legalize slavery, I doubt I'd be going back and I doubt the law would be upheld so not my problem.

OK I guess we'll just have to disagree about that then.

 

[countingdays]

You are way to focused on the law. I'm focused on morality. There is no meaningful change in moral status that occurs in the moment of birth. Just like child abuse was settled law but is no loger considered a parental privacy right, killing babies isn't really a privacy issue. Anyway, arguing about this sort of thing gets old.

 

[Mman]

OK I guess we'll just have to disagree about that then.

Also, I forgot to mention that your slavery rule is specifically covered in amendment 13 of the US Constitution. A state couldn't make a law overturning that even if they wanted to.

 

[vector2]

You are way to focused on the law. I'm focused on morality. There is no meaningful change in moral status that occurs in the moment of birth. Just like child abuse was settled law but is no loger considered a parental privacy right, killing babies isn't really a privacy issue. Anyway, arguing about this sort of thing gets old.

Try focusing on reality for a sec. There are ~800k-1.2mil abortions in the US each year. Either you can go about trying to ban abortion or accept that abortions are going to happen one way or another. The question is, should we force those seeking abortions into dangerous underground practices, or should we do our best to provide them safely while concurrently reducing the number of abortions needed with education and easily accessible contraception/family planning?

 

[bcat85]

Try focusing on reality for a sec. There are ~800k-1.2mil abortions in the US each year. Either you can go about trying to ban abortion or accept that abortions are going to happen one way or another. The question is, should we force those seeking abortions into dangerous underground practices, or should we do our best to provide them safely while concurrently reducing the number of abortions needed with education and easily accessible contraception/family planning?

There were also 88,000 rapes last year. Rape is probably going to happen one way or another. Should we force rapists into dangerous underground practices, or should we legalize rape and make it more humane and safe, while trying to reduce the number of rapes with education and easily accessible prostitutes? 😎

 

[vector2]

Yeah, because abortion = rape 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

 

[bcat85]

Yeah, because abortion = rape 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

My point was to illustrate that the "well people are going to do it anyway, so we might as well make it legal" argument is not particularly useful.

 

[vector2]

My point was to illustrate that the "well people are going to do it anyway, so we might as well make it legal" argument is not particularly useful.

What is this "make it legal" nonsense you're blathering about? Abortion has been legal in this country for 40 years because minds better than yours have already considered and long ago dismissed *******, emotionally-charged, category error analogies like the one you previously mentioned.

 

[bcat85]

What is this "make it legal" nonsense you're blathering about? Abortion has been legal in this country for 40 years because minds better than yours have already considered and long ago dismissed *******, emotionally-charged, category error analogies like the one you previously mentioned.

This is definitely not a "category error," nor is it "emotionally-charged." (or ******* for that matter..) I suspect that you missed my point. You said:

"Either you can go about trying to ban abortion or accept that abortions are going to happen one way or another. The question is, should we force those seeking abortions into dangerous underground practices, or should we do our best to provide them safely while concurrently reducing the number of abortions needed with education and easily accessible contraception/family planning?"


I argued that just because people are going to do it doesn't mean it should be legal. I could have used literally any other crime... drug possession, illegal gambling, tax evasion, etc. People are going to continue to do immoral things, but the fact that they are going to do immoral things doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands and say "well, its going to happen anyway, lets just make it legal and save ourselves the trouble."

 

[vector2]

This is definitely not a "category error," nor is it "emotionally-charged." (or ******* for that matter..) I suspect that you missed my point. You said:

"Either you can go about trying to ban abortion or accept that abortions are going to happen one way or another. The question is, should we force those seeking abortions into dangerous underground practices, or should we do our best to provide them safely while concurrently reducing the number of abortions needed with education and easily accessible contraception/family planning?"


I argued that just because people are going to do it doesn't mean it should be legal. I could have used literally any other crime... drug possession, illegal gambling, tax evasion, etc. People are going to continue to do immoral things, but the fact that they are going to do immoral things doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands and say "well, its going to happen anyway, lets just make it legal and save ourselves the trouble."

Abortion is a crime according to whom? Immoral according to whom? What do you think is the ethical and legal consensus regarding rape as opposed to termination of a pregnancy? Last I checked there wasn't a poll of Americans in which half of them thought rape and tax evasion should be legalized. Marijuana possession and abortion on the other hand have teetered around 60/40 to 50/50 for the last 20 years, and that's why you make a category error by conflating a hotly contested issue with something that is clearly wrong by any moral standard which values autonomy. It's emotionally charged because instead of looking at this country's unique concerns with abortion, you pretty much just went "RAPE RAPE ABORTION RAPE LET'S MAKE IT ALL ILLEGAL AM I RITE GUYS?"

You can call abortion an immoral crime in your own little world all you want, but until you establish an argument in which a non-viable fetus has the same rights and autonomy as a grown human being (sufficient to the point where you can justify violating that person's expectation of a constitutional right to privacy) your words ring empty.


bonus cartoon:

 

[bcat85]

Abortion is a crime according to whom? Immoral according to whom? What do you think is the ethical and legal consensus regarding rape as opposed to termination of a pregnancy? Last I checked there wasn't a poll of Americans in which half of them thought rape and tax evasion should be legalized. Marijuana possession and abortion on the other hand have teetered around 60/40 to 50/50 for the last 20 years, and that's why you make a category error by conflating a hotly contested issue with something that is clearly wrong by any moral standard which values autonomy. It's emotionally charged because instead of looking at this country's unique concerns with abortion, you pretty much just went "RAPE RAPE ABORTION RAPE LET'S MAKE IT ALL ILLEGAL AM I RITE GUYS?"

You can call abortion an immoral crime in your own little world all you want, but until you establish an argument in which a non-viable fetus has the same rights and autonomy as a grown human being (sufficient to the point where you can justify violating that person's expectation of a constitutional right to privacy) your words ring empty.

...cool story bro. You're still not listening and I'm tired of this.

On another slightly different note, I appreciate you taking the time to illustrate liberal zealotry in all of its irritating stripes.

 

[countingdays]

Abortion is a crime according to whom? Immoral according to whom? What do you think is the ethical and legal consensus regarding rape as opposed to termination of a pregnancy? Last I checked there wasn't a poll of Americans in which half of them thought rape and tax evasion should be legalized. Marijuana possession and abortion on the other hand have teetered around 60/40 to 50/50 for the last 20 years, and that's why you make a category error by conflating a hotly contested issue with something that is clearly wrong by any moral standard which values autonomy. It's emotionally charged because instead of looking at this country's unique concerns with abortion, you pretty much just went "RAPE RAPE ABORTION RAPE LET'S MAKE IT ALL ILLEGAL AM I RITE GUYS?"

You can call abortion an immoral crime in your own little world all you want, but until you establish an argument in which a non-viable fetus has the same rights and autonomy as a grown human being (sufficient to the point where you can justify violating that person's expectation of a constitutional right to privacy) your words ring empty.


bonus cartoon:

I think it is more reasonable to start with the assumption that killing babies is wrong and placing the burden of proof on abortionists to show that the right to privacy is greater than the right to life.

 

[vector2]

...cool story bro. You're still not listening and I'm tired of this.

On another slightly different note, I appreciate you taking the time to illustrate liberal zealotry in all of its irritating stripes.

Good argument. Glad to see you can't actually substantively address an issue beyond whatever preconceived judgements you've already made.

I think it is more reasonable to start with the assumption that killing babies is wrong and placing the burden of proof on abortionists to show that the right to privacy is greater than the right to life.

A non-viable zygote/embryo/fetus is a baby? We musta had a couple different biology lectures here and there...

 

[BLADEMDA]

Good argument. Glad to see you can't actually substantively address an issue beyond whatever preconceived judgements you've already made.



A non-viable zygote/embryo/fetus is a baby? We musta had a couple different biology lectures here and there...

Question: if (when) technology advances to the point that we as a society can keep a ten week old fetus Alive outside the uterus will your viewpoint on abortion change?

Once science advances to the point where we can care for a ten week old fetus/baby and raise it to adulthood does that fetus get the legal right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

When does the fetus/baby become a living person in your view? 24 weeks? Does that number have to do with science, religion or philosophy for you?

 

[BLADEMDA]

21 Week Old Patient

The photograph below is of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by a surgeon named Dr. Joseph Bruner.
Little Samuel was diagnosed with spinal bifida and it was determined that he would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta and she had heard of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure and skill. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, Dr. Bruner performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.
During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision that allows him to access and operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.
The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, 'Hand of Hope.' The text explaining the picture begins, 'The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.'
Little Samuel's mother said they 'wept for days' when they saw the picture. She said, 'The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person.' Samuel was born in perfect health; the operation was 100 percent successful.

AMAZING!!

• http://abortionabout.com/typesofabortionprocedures.html
• http://abortionabout.com/1sttrimesterabortion.html

 

[cincincyreds]

Yeah, because abortion = rape 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

Could you explain to me what makes it right for anyone, including your or me, to tell a woman what goes on inside of her uterus? I've always been curious about this part of the arguement.

 

[kazuma]

21 Week Old Patient

The photograph below is of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by a surgeon named Dr. Joseph Bruner.
Little Samuel was diagnosed with spinal bifida and it was determined that he would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta and she had heard of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure and skill. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, Dr. Bruner performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.
During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision that allows him to access and operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.
The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, 'Hand of Hope.' The text explaining the picture begins, 'The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.'
Little Samuel's mother said they 'wept for days' when they saw the picture. She said, 'The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person.' Samuel was born in perfect health; the operation was 100 percent successful.

AMAZING!!

• http://abortionabout.com/typesofabortionprocedures.html
• http://abortionabout.com/1sttrimesterabortion.html

That is amazing. Thanks for sharing.

 

[vector2]

21 Week Old Patient

Blade, do you ever fact-check anything you find on the internet? Abortion opponents have distorted the record of this picture, and I was at least hoping a board-certified anesthesiologist would've thought twice about what was going on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Armas

The picture attracted a lot of attention when it was released, as it was used by opponents of abortion who asserted that the baby reached through the womb and grabbed the doctor's hand, thus showing signs of life at the 21st week of pregnancy. Indeed the photograph and many of the texts which often accompany it seem to support this view, including the account of the photographer Michael Clancy:

“ As a doctor asked me what speed of film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake, but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow!
It happened so fast that the nurse standing next to me asked, "What happened?"

"The child reached out," I said.

"Oh. They do that all the time," she responded.

”

— Michael Clancy[5]

However, the surgeon later stated that Samuel and his mother Julie were under anesthesia and could not move.

“ "The baby did not reach out," Dr Bruner said. "The baby was anesthetized. The baby was not aware of what was going on.".[6]
He also stated, “Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it’s me pulling his hand out of the uterus … which is what I did.” [7]

also: http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

 

[vector2]

Could you explain to me what makes it right for anyone, including your or me, to tell a woman what goes on inside of her uterus? I've always been curious about this part of the arguement.

I don't think it's right for anyone but the woman (and her family/doctor, depending on her wishes) to have a say in what goes on in her uterus.

 

[vector2]

Question: if (when) technology advances to the point that we as a society can keep a ten week old fetus Alive outside the uterus will your viewpoint on abortion change?

I dunno. I'll cross that bridge when science gets there.

Once science advances to the point where we can care for a ten week old fetus/baby and raise it to adulthood does that fetus get the legal right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Once again, dunno. But what's this we business? It's strikes me as absurd that you go on about wanting to protect the babies while crying about getting your wealth redistributed by the government. Forcing indigent mothers to have unwanted kids while simultaneously gutting the social safety net doesn't really sound like a great plan...

When does the fetus/baby become a living person in your view? 24 weeks? Does that number have to do with science, religion or philosophy for you?

There's no exact number as far as I know where a fetus definitively crosses the threshold from non-viable to viable.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade, do you ever fact-check anything you find on the internet? Abortion opponents have distorted the record of this picture, and I was at least hoping a board-certified anesthesiologist would've thought twice about what was going on



also: http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

The picture is no less amazing. The surgeon corrected a spinal defect in utero on a 21 week fetus. The hand just shows that 21 week old is a person inside that uterus.

Ron Paul and I agree that at some point the fetus has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."