Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 10:11 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: However, I could find similar copies of the bill. This exception suffers from several flaws. It is limited to situations where the woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury. This language excludes some life-threatening situations by enumerating others. Which such life-threatening situations are not covered by physical disorder, illness or injury? But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? Because this is a matter between a woman and her doctor? Aren't you forgetting someone?Let's rephrase your question for another era in American history: Why do you want to get the government involved in a person's disposition of his own private property? Slavery, after all, was explicitly protected by the Constitution (unlike abortion), and we had Supreme Court rulings affirming that slaves were property.So, why would you want to get the government involved in a person's disposition of his own property? If you are willing to believe that a slave is property, that logic makes perfect sense.Just as if you are willing to believe to children are property until they exit the bodies of their mothers, and therfore can be disposed of by the mother as she sees fit, then your logic probably makes sense to you. The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is borderline offensive, as sacred is a very important concept in our religion. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:42:54 -0400, JDG wrote The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is borderline offensive, as sacred is a very important concept in our religion. I believe you will find it in the canon of Monty Python. Can't believe nobody pointed that out yet. I didn't say so the first time because I figured 15 other people would. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:58 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On 5/19/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:30 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. and also wrote: and I disagree here. I think that would be illegal under Roe v. Wade which is more sophisticated than you think. You are again playing fast and loose with the facts by only referring to Roe vs. Wade, and neglecting Doe vs. Bolton, Casey vs. PP of PA, and Stenberg vs. Carhart. I briefly referred to Casey. The pro-choice side, I have amply demonstrated, doesn't want any lines drawn - as we still have not had anyone able to take my challenge of identifying a *single* restriction on abortion supported by that side. Am I defining abortion as murder? Killing viable infants unless a finding has been made that the women's life is endangered is murder, it is not abortion. You said, life and not health. So, you agree that Stenberg vs. Carhart legalized murder in the United States? This hasn't come up before and I am not yet sufficiently versed in it to decide. You are wrong and this is another false argument. The decision could not be made on the mental health of the mother but actual endangerment of the mother. It would also have to be an affirmative decision that the baby is endangering her life and it has come down to one or another. Not true. Stenberg vs. Carhart requires an exception for *health*, not *life*, including mental health. Again I would have to see if this true. I have learned not to go by just your interpretation. With all due respect Gary, did you look? Another quote from the case law: Thornburg v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) (5-4) per Blackmun. The last case where a majority of the Court would adhere completely to Roe. C.J. Burger, White, Rehnquist and O'Connor dissenting. The Court struck down provisions of a Pennsylvania state law requiring (1) that a woman receive information on abortion alternatives and human development in utero; (2) that a woman receive information about the possible health dangers of abortion; (3) the keeping detailed statistical records of abortions; (4) that post-viability abortions be performed in such a way as to allow a child to survive the procedure, unless this would significantly increase risk to the woman; (5) that a second physician be present at post-viability abortions to care for a child who survives the procedure. The Court held that these provisions (1) invaded the privacy of the woman and her doctor; (2) were calculated by the Pennsylvania legislature to intimidate women and try to dissuade them from having abortions; (3) impermissibly put the lives of viable fetuses over the health concerns of women. Both came from: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/19/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another quote from the case law: Thornburg v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) (5-4) per Blackmun. The last case where a majority of the Court would adhere completely to Roe. C.J. Burger, White, Rehnquist and O'Connor dissenting. The Court struck down provisions of a Pennsylvania state law requiring (1) that a woman receive information on abortion alternatives and human development in utero; (2) that a woman receive information about the possible health dangers of abortion; (3) the keeping detailed statistical records of abortions; (4) that post-viability abortions be performed in such a way as to allow a child to survive the procedure, unless this would significantly increase risk to the woman; (5) that a second physician be present at post-viability abortions to care for a child who survives the procedure. The Court held that these provisions (1) invaded the privacy of the woman and her doctor; (2) were calculated by the Pennsylvania legislature to intimidate women and try to dissuade them from having abortions; (3) impermissibly put the lives of viable fetuses over the health concerns of women. Both came from: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm The next line reads Blackmun's opinion is peculiarly acrimonious, as he sees in these statutes a conscious refusal of the Pennsylvania Legislature to heed the constitutional mandate of *Roe.* This appears to be striking back at critics for not reading Roe and it invalidated most of the law including some things a calmer court ruled acceptable. See Casey. I like that site which also shows the arguments against the partial-birth abortion ban. *Just what the Partial-birth abortion laws actually ban is a matter of legal controversy. If, as opponents claim, they ban the common DE procedure (a technique in which the physician dismembers the fetus in the uterine cavity using sharp instruments such as forceps, and suction and then removes the fetal parts by pulling them out piece by piece through the cervical os.) or other, even more common, procedures, it would seem to fit well within the purview of Danforth and warrant being struck down. On the other hand, if the laws ban only the rarer Partial-birth, ICD, or DX method, then it is distinct from Danforth in important ways and might well be constitutional, as to purely elective abortions. In either case, however, there is still the question of abortions that are justifiable for health reasons under Casey. An undue burden on an abortion decision for health reasons will presumably be judged differently than those that are purely elective in nature. In Caseyhttp://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm#casey , at 880 http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/505l4.htm#880, the Supreme Court apparently applied the undue burden standard to Doehttp://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm#doe-type health situations. However, Casey offers little guidance in applying the standard, other than to say that a statute that does not in any way pose a significant threat to the life or health of a woman is constitutional, which is obvious enough. At any rate, proponents of these procedural bans claim that this abortion method is not required to ensure women's health. Opponents of these statutes argue that the partial-birth method is substantially safer than alternative procedures that require either intrauterine dismemberment (which is a rather forceful affair and is more likely leave fetal tissue behind) or delivery of an undeflated skull (which may require more dilation and result in a live delivery). Requiring women to undergo a substantially more risky operation would, arguably, place an undue burden on the availability of an otherwise protected abortion. Therefore, how important the procedure is to women's health is another point of controversy. And it seems that the disagreement is widespread: A** unanimous American Medical Association's Council on Legislation supported the federal ban as did the AMA's Vice President, who asserted the method was not medically indicated. However the AMA, as a whole, seems to have become more ambivalent, and has made no declarations on the matter since 1997. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on the other hand, while not concluding that the procedure is necessary in any particular circumstances, held that it should be made available to physicians as part of their surgical repertoire. Moreover, a large number of federal district courts have determined that the procedure is materially necessary to some women who seek an otherwise legal abortion. * http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/pbal.htm It appears to not have some more recent decisions also invalidating the federal law which uses the same language. Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On 5/17/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/17/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. Answered elsewhere but that is not the Roe v. Wade decision. I saw your quote from Reproductive Health Matters, and I don't find it intuitive. Since the abortions are illegal, it would be very interesting to see the methodogy of estimation. Looking back at US history, is it really likely that the number of abortions was roughly 40% of the number of births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a I googled for that term and got this self-definition: The journal offers in-depth analysis of reproductive health matters from a women-centred perspective, written by and for women's health advocates, researchers, service providers, policymakers and those in related fields with an interest in women's health. Its aim is to promote laws, policies. research and services that meet women's reproductive health needs and support women's right to decide whether, when and how to have children. at http://gort.ucsd.edu/newjour/r/msg02430.html It's an advocacy magazine, as I guessed. I would not consider it any more objective than the GOP website. :-) Here was my original: Reproductive Health Matters volume 10, issue 19 (not online, sorry), has a report on the results of Poland's abortion ban (Poland banned abortion in 1993, except in cases of rape, a threat to the health or life of the mother, or a severely damaged fetus). The Polish abortion ban is fairly similar to what pro-lifers in the USA have proposed, except that American pro-lifers are opposed to health exemptions. The law didn't measurably reduce the number of Polish abortions; it did, however, force hundreds of thousands of women to obtain illegal abortions (and it drove the price of abortions way up). However, some women who need abortions for health reasons don't have the money or connections to obtain an illegal abortion, or cannot safely have an abortion outside of a legal hospital setting. The result, of course, is that women are hurt I take it you believe that a law restricting abortion will reduce abortions measurably even if it doesn't eliminate abortions? Or are you also disagreeing that illegal abortions will rise, the cost will go up, and women's lives would be endangered? I would think a women's journal for health advocates would be more objective even on issues that concern them than a political organ but I may be naive that way. I think your link confirms it is a reputable science journal. Another link has: *Reproductive* *Health* *Matters* is a twice yearly peer-reviewed *...* Each issue of *Reproductive* *Health* *Matters*concentrates on a specific theme. *. * Can we determine which is which: The evidence shows that restrictive legislation is associated with higher rates of unsafe abortion and correspondingly high mortality. In Romania, for example, abortion-related deaths increased sharply when the law became very restrictive in 1966 and fell after 1990 with a return to the less restrictive legislation.17 Contrary to common belief, legalisation of abortion does not necessarily increase abortion rates. The Netherlands, for example, has a non-restrictive abortion law, widely accessible contraceptives and free abortion services, and the lowest abortion rate in the world 5.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age per year.16 Barbados, Canada, Tunisia and Turkey have all changed abortion laws to allow for greater access to legal abortion without increasing abortion rates.16 Or this: I support abortion, just as long as we can retroactively abort Hillary, Maureen, Nancy, etc. This is a push-poll as sure as the sky is blue. The number of people I've run into willing to defend abortion publicly has plummetted within the last 10 years. I'd say my anecdotal evidence has about as much authority as this bozo old media poll. These people stop just short of holding a mother-to-be against her will, don't they? There was a thread recently about how the feticide *business*has gotten so competitive in Michigan (my home state) that some clinics offer perks. The impression I got was a sort of Aromatherapy and Vaccuum Deluxe package. I believe it, too, living so close to MSU. A slaughterhouse on every corner. Looks like Michael Savage got this one right. Bush is inexplicably doing everything in his power to elect Hillary Clinton president 2008. One of these is from a health organization. One from a GOP site. Dan M. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On May 18, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: [...] (c) 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 it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. How do you figure? The proviso includes appropriate medical judgment, which leaves psychologists right out, as only psychiatrists are also MDs, and only psychiatrists would be (implicitly) entitled to render *medical* judgment regarding a woman's health. A non-psychiatrist MD, furthermore, would not be able to make judgments based on mental health -- or so I understand -- so Dr. Nick Riviera can't just waltz in, say Hi everybody, and prescribe an abortion based on *anything* he pulls from a DSM. That's not true. A non-psychiatrist MD certainly can make a diagnosis and write a perscription for mental health reasons. I know that as a fact. My point is not that the MD can pull something out of his tush, it's that it is a _legetimate_ mental health diagnosis. If you want to continue contending that a psychiatrist is likely to risk his license and professional future by trumping up a faked mental-health reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion, you certainly can, but it'll be an extremely tenuous argument, I think. What's trumped up or faked? You think that a woman wanting a late term abortion won't be extremely anxious? DSM4 is _the_ diagnostic tool for mental health. This is _literally_ by the book...her mental health is in danger if she is suffering anxiety disorder because she is pregnant. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Even more odd. If it's a *free* clinic, what is the motivation to perform an abortion on trumped-up grounds? Wouldn't that be more likely with a bribable private practitioner? Because they don't believe it's trumped up. Since the fetus isn't human, the mental health of the mother is all that's needed to justify an abortion. Becasue they are true believers in reproductive rights. If the numbers are less than 1000/year, and some are needed to protect the life of the mother, why not specify that third term abortions are legally acceptable only when they are to protect the life of the mother. Most Americans are in favor of this. Why do the promoters of reproductive rights consider this such an affront to human rights? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:48 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today Thank you for that quote. That is very close to my summary except life or health. So are we splitting hairs over how much the health of the mother be endangered? Only if you think that a full term fetus has no humanity at all. Are you arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and then proceed accordingly? If you consider two humans, and one person ends the life of another to save their own, then that is much more justifyable than killing another for health reasons. Is it a bigger threat to not allow abortion at all, allow it in some cases of phyical health of the mother, or to allow it if both a doctor and a clinic decide the mother's health is endangered? It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 12:03 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] A non-psychiatrist MD, furthermore, would not be able to make judgments based on mental health -- or so I understand -- so Dr. Nick Riviera can't just waltz in, say Hi everybody, and prescribe an abortion based on *anything* he pulls from a DSM. That's not true. A non-psychiatrist MD certainly can make a diagnosis and write a perscription for mental health reasons. I know that as a fact. Ah. Very well, so if a woman can convince her MD that there's a DSM entry for what she's experiencing, she can get a chit for a third-trimester abortion. And this disturbs you, apparently, but I still don't know why given the 1:25,000 number for late-term terminations. (Or even without that stat; that is, I don't know why this idea seems so distressing to you.) My point is not that the MD can pull something out of his tush, it's that it is a _legetimate_ mental health diagnosis. So the problem is not that something faked can be put forth as a reason for abortion? Then what is the problem, exactly? If you want to continue contending that a psychiatrist is likely to risk his license and professional future by trumping up a faked mental-health reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion, you certainly can, but it'll be an extremely tenuous argument, I think. What's trumped up or faked? Nothing, necessarily; you seem somewhat exercised over the idea that some DSM entries could conceivably be used to terminate a late fetus. Either you're concerned that such reasons would be faked or trumped-up, or you're concerned about something else, but you haven't named what it is (at least not that I've seen). You think that a woman wanting a late term abortion won't be extremely anxious? DSM4 is _the_ diagnostic tool for mental health. This is _literally_ by the book...her mental health is in danger if she is suffering anxiety disorder because she is pregnant. With a few weeks to go to the natural termination of the pregnancy, do you really believe a doctor will prescribe an abortion in the name of ending anxiety? Wouldn't that be imprudent? How much more anxious would the woman be after the abortion? All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Even more odd. If it's a *free* clinic, what is the motivation to perform an abortion on trumped-up grounds? Wouldn't that be more likely with a bribable private practitioner? Because they don't believe it's trumped up. Since the fetus isn't human, the mental health of the mother is all that's needed to justify an abortion. Not necessarily. Blackman's decision is pretty clear about *medical* judgment, particularly *reasonable* medical judgment. I'm upset so let's terminate this baby, due in three weeks is hardly a reasonable request. If the numbers are less than 1000/year, and some are needed to protect the life of the mother, why not specify that third term abortions are legally acceptable only when they are to protect the life of the mother. Most Americans are in favor of this. Why do the promoters of reproductive rights consider this such an affront to human rights? I personally don't. Do you have cites to show that promoters of reproductive rights are actively opposed to protecting life only clauses? Also, have you considered that the phrasing of the laws might still be in need of tuning by experience? After all there's a tenuous line between mental and physical health, and though I don't know of a case where a pregnancy might result in crippling a woman, if such a thing is possible I would be in favor of a termination, even in the third trimester, in the interest of protecting the woman's *health*. Or consider the woman who, a couple years back, murdered all her children in a fir of postpartum depression. Wouldn't it have been arguable that termination of her latest pregnancy might have been a better course? It would not have protected her physical health; it would have been about her mental condition ... the ones physically protected would have been her other children, it seems to me. Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational discussion. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are you arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and then proceed accordingly? Isn't that, rather, the thrust of *your* argument? A decision that a fetus past a certain number of days is human, full stop, and that's all there is to discuss? That's how it looks from this side. Is that what's bothering you, Dan? The idea that somewhere in that third trimester, the fetus is more human than not, and therefore abortion shouldn't be possible any longer, or at least not *casually* so? If so, well, let's talk about that for a while rather than getting worked up over hypotheticals and theoreticals. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
In a message dated 5/18/2005 3:08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? That is the wrong formulation. Humaness is innate in the sense that it apertains to any human fetus but it is also not present at inception. It develops progressivley over time. There is no threshold over which a fetus crosses to become human but clearlythere is a range of time over which it changes from something that is potentially human to something that is human ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 12:21 PM, I wrote: On May 18, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are you arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and then proceed accordingly? Isn't that, rather, the thrust of *your* argument? A decision that a fetus past a certain number of days is human, full stop, and that's all there is to discuss? That's how it looks from this side. I think I just glimmed it here. Is your position, Dan, that not specifically protecting the unborn (late term) is essentially a decision to *rob* them of their humanity, to strip them of their innate right to life (whether defined as a legal custom or something divinely granted)? That not specifically forbidding third-trimester abortions except in the case of mortal need is, in essence, a sin of omission? If so I think I might have a better sense of the source of your objection to supporting free-range abortion. How about laws that clearly define what health of the mother is meant to express? Would that help your discomfort? (If so, all we need to do is settle on that definition ... and 50,000 pages later we'd probably have a good start, knowing the legal system as I do. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: snip The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: quote (To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (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. (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. (c) 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 it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. it is so ordered end quote Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Got an explicit example of this occuring exactly as you lay it out, or are you simply engaging in supposition? xponent Hypothesis Vs. Reality Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 18, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Got an explicit example of this occuring exactly as you lay it out, or are you simply engaging in supposition? To be fair, I think we should talk about the hypotheticals, even the ones that seem (to some of us at least) only remotely feasible or not particularly relevant, because if something is reasonably possible, eventually it'll probably happen. It seems to me that a lot of Dan's concern is based in the extremes -- the fringes, the things which happen rarely if ever, but which (to him at the very least) seem to pose some serious ethical or moral questions. That an eighth-month abortion because of malaise has not yet (TTBOMK) happened doesn't necessarily mean it won't, and if (as I suspect is the case here) one feels an infant's soul is in peril or something like murder might be perpetrated, discussion of hypotheticals becomes crucial, if for no other reason than respect for the sensibilities of those involved in the discussion. In this light, overlooking the very rare late-trimester abortion circumstance on the grounds that it's very rare is a little like ignoring the Earth-orbit crossing asteroids on the grounds that they've only caused three or maybe as many as five mass extinctions in 500 million years. The costs of failure may be far too great to be careless about precautions; amortization of risk is literally impossible when the very uncommon eventually does happen, as it eventually will, and when the results are potentially so devastating. So Dan doesn't necessarily have to provide a cite to have a legitimate concern that is worth discussing, I think. If what we're really talking about is a subset of ethics or morality, one of the best ways to do so is to talk about philosophical posers rather than history (at least to exclusivity), or so it seems to me. It seems more prudent to discuss what if? than what happened?. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On 5/17/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant women? I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's a legal abortion. Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too controversial. First, they could always induce labor...so I think there is a medical reason for carrying the dead fetus to term. I'm not sure why, once the woman is dilated, pushing is all that more dangerous than an extraction. There is the risk of the usual small complications for the woman that's associated with normal childbirth, but I don't see how the risk of death or serious harm is increased greatly by the extra time it takes for pushing a stillborn baby out. IIRC, delivery of even a dead fetus normally is considered safer than any intervention that could be tried. Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I saw your quote from Reproductive Health Matters, and I don't find it intuitive. Since the abortions are illegal, it would be very interesting to see the methodogy of estimation. Looking back at US history, is it really likely that the number of abortions was roughly 40% of the number of births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a I googled for that term and got this self-definition: The journal offers in-depth analysis of reproductive health matters from a women-centred perspective, written by and for women's health advocates, researchers, service providers, policymakers and those in related fields with an interest in women's health. Its aim is to promote laws, policies. research and services that meet women's reproductive health needs and support women's right to decide whether, when and how to have children. at http://gort.ucsd.edu/newjour/r/msg02430.html It's an advocacy magazine, as I guessed. I would not consider it any more objective than the GOP website. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
