Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Roe v. Wade at 38 (376 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That is exactly my point (9+ / 0-)

    ...there are no bad reasons b/c women, as moral agents and reasonable people, along with their doctors and in all circumstances, must be trusted to do with their bodies what makes sense, is most healthy overall, needed, and reasonable. No one can make that call from a distance and no public policy can make that call on a case by case basis. Public policy isn't designed to do reviews while a woman is hemorrhaging in the er. Women don't have abortions for "no good reason". Especially late term abortions. It is not our business what the myriad reasons for the abortion are for that woman in that circumstance. That concern is a personal concern, not a basis for public policy.

    We must assume women are always making the right decision for them. If we aren't willing to make that assumption, then we are supporting state forced birth and that is far more ethically problematic than any late term abortion that has ever been performed.

    We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

    by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:49:25 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Totally disagree with your position on this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VickiL

      The issue is, does a woman have the right to take the chance at life away from a viable fetus? And can a doctor take that chance at life away by performing an abortion after viability?

      The state would be coercing forced birth in order to prevent the death of a viable fetus which, if allowed to leave the womb, could survive.

      Now, that viable fetus is still a fetus until it leaves the womb, and isn't yet a "human being", but the only distinction that keeps it from being a human being is that it's inside the womb.

      We wouldn't allow a woman to take the life of another human being for convenience sake.

      And so many have an issue with allowing a woman to abort a viable fetus for convenience sake.

      And we wouldn't allow a doctor to take the life of a human being just because a woman asked him to do so. We wouldn't condone it if the baby were born, and the woman told the doctor to smother it, and he did so.

      And for many people, taking the potential for life outside the womb away from a viable fetus is so close to being that same thing as taking the life of a baby/human being outside of the womb, that they see the right to abortion after viability differently than they see the right to abortion before viability.

      There's no good, logical, reasonable argument against abortion before viability. None. No non-viable fetus that couldn't survive outside the womb should ever be able to force a woman to remain an incubator against her will. A human being and a non-viable fetus aren't close to being equivalent. A non-viable fetus isn't and can never be a human being, even if that fetus leaves the womb.

      But a viable fetus and a human being are pretty close to being equivalent. Now, they aren't equivalent, but they are much closer to being equivalent, and so the right for the woman to control her body at the cost of a viable fetus losing its chance at life is much more disputable.

      •  The fetus is only a fetus (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        meerkoet, tardis10

        until it is viable, then it is a baby and can't be aborted. If the fetus can survive outside the womb then the point is moot. Abortions as you describe just don't happen.

        We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

        by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:06:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope, you don't know what you're talking about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          It's not a baby until it leaves the womb.

          And they DO happen - just check out the stories about the doctor who was charged with the deaths of about 8 viable fetuses just this past week!

          And there are non-viable fetuses and viable fetuses.

          A viable fetus might be inside a womb from 26 weeks until 39 weeks. It's a viable fetus that whole time.

          And it is that fact about viability that makes some people argue that abortions up until viability are okay, and others who say that any time a woman wants an abortion, up until birth, she should be able to have one.

          •  What exactly makes you a Democrat? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fiddlegirl, tardis10

            What do you stand for in even the bastardized Obama Party Platform?

            -9.50/-7.59 - Bring 'em back, Out of Iraq and Afghanistan

            by Situational Lefty on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:21:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What is your freakin' problem? (0+ / 0-)

              I am not saying that I, personally, believe that viable fetuses shouldn't be aborted.

              I am simply explaining that there are legit arguments for choosing to restrict/outlaw the aborting of viable fetuses, but there's no legit argument for aborting non-viable fetuses.

              I am arguing that there is no legit argument to restrict, in any way, the choice of a woman to abort a non-viable fetus.

              And so why are you asserting that I somehow am not behaving like a liberal Democrat?

              Huh?

              I swear, you fools who allow your personal animus to cloud your vision are FOOLS!

              There are very few Democrats here who are more liberal than I am. But there are too many here who argue without facts, who leap to unsupportable conclusions, like about Julian Assange or the birds dying in Arkansas or about 6 other things I have diaried about!

              My desire to have honest debates and discussions doesn't make me any less of a Democrat.

              But your snide and untrue allegations? They make YOU a jerk.

          •  If a woman (4+ / 0-)

            has a grave medical issue that is presenting under circumstances such as what you described (the fetus is viable and not in danger, but she is) then the woman doesn't get an abortion. The doctor induces labor and they deal w/ the severe potential complications of a premie birth in order to prevent the mother from further harm. The presumption is that the potential harm of a premature birth is less than the potential harm to the mother if she continues to carry the fetus. Again, 99.999% of women who've carried a fetus to the 7th month want that baby. The ones in the story about the doctor in Philadelphia are the exception, by margins so large as to make them statistically irrelevant for the purposes of discussion public policy vis a vis reproductive rights.

            We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

            by Tookish on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:18:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Baloney (0+ / 0-)

              Those women do, sometimes, get abortions, as I have already explained to you.

              In addition, the poll question didn't limit abortions to those circumstances.

              What part of this baffles you?

              The poll question didn't exclude those things!

          •  It's also likely (4+ / 0-)

            overly optimistic to say that fetuses at 26 weeks are viable. They are possibly viable, tho' the quality of life for the baby once born is questionable. Are you noticing a theme? The complexities, darn it, they just keep showing up, don't they? Some problems aren't apparent until birth and a full term baby can handle some issues that a 26 or even 30 week old premie couldn't. So, viability isn't a clear line at all. The long term effects can be devastating on the mother, the family, the child him/herself. Are you going to sit in each waiting room to help each woman and doctor come to the best decision according to your personal ethics? B/c short of that, public policy will either allow the woman to make those decisions w/ her doctor or allow the state to make those decisions w/out knowing her, her health, her doctor's recommendations, her families needs etc.

            We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

            by Tookish on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:26:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't know what you're talking about (0+ / 0-)

              I understand exactly what viability means, and I fully understand, and understood before I started interacting with you, the facts on what and when babies become viable, if ever.

              I don't need anything explained to me on this topic by someone who clearly doesn't understand as much as I do about it!

              I never thought that viability was a clear line, for example. Never happened. And nothing I wrote could be misinterpreted to assert that I did think that! But you seem to believe that.

              And that's a clear sign that you can't effectively discuss this topic. Which is why I told you that you are clueless on this topic. You just had to keep proving it for some odd reason.

      •  That womb (6+ / 0-)

        ...I think you have just played your hand clearly.

        Now, that viable fetus is still a fetus until it leaves the womb, and isn't yet a "human being", but the only distinction that keeps it from being a human being is that it's inside the womb.

        "That womb" is surrounded by a woman. A live, complicated, ethical, moral agent who must decide how to balance all the myriad issues that are presenting in her life. Not a single other person is in a better position than she is to determine what should be done with "that womb" than she is. Someone must decide. Will it be her? With her doctor? Or will it be the state?

        We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

        by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:38:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  something is sort of like something else (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tookish

        I am afraid that there is not a whit of actual logic in this post.

        the right to take the chance at life away from a viable fetus

        but they are much closer to being equivalent, and so the right for the woman to control her body at the cost of a viable fetus losing its chance at life is much more disputable.

        This is not an argument but sophistry, and nothing like a consideration of what is actually at stake here.  Something is sort of like something but not quite like it, may work in the fuzzy logic of moral speculation but could never work as a principle of LAW.

    •  THIS. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tookish, tardis10

      Public policy isn't designed to do reviews while a woman is hemorrhaging in the er.

      This, right here, is the reason you can't make abortion a matter of public policy.  The law is a blunt instrument.  It isn't designed for sensitive, case-by-case, time-critical decision-making.

      "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -Thomas Paine

      by sierrak9s on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 07:12:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you mean (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sierrak9s

        that there just needs to be a blanket waiver for a woman to always have the right to make whatever decision she needs to (with her doctor) under any circumstances? B/c that's what I'm arguing and I consider that to be public policy, albeit founded on a constitutional right (human right!) to privacy.

        We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

        by Tookish on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 10:55:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm late responding, but (0+ / 0-)

          Yes.  Always.  Whatever decision the woman makes about her own body, I do not want the State to interfere.

          "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -Thomas Paine

          by sierrak9s on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 05:21:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site