Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am generally pro choice, but I also admit I am quesy about really..last few weeks late term abortions.

D'uh!

Did you miss all the posts where this doesn't happen?

If the fetus has deformities incompatible with life, to save the mother carrying a doomed fetus, if the mother chooses, those pregnancies can be terminated.

If the mother's life is at risk, that pregnancy is terminated early, attempting to save the infant if at all possible.

An example would be placental abruption, the placenta separates from the uterus before its time. Mother will bleed to death if the pregnancy is not ended, an emergency c-section is performed. The fetus if too young will die, if the pregnancy is viable they will try to save it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Some people seem to thing that women go to the doctor in their 8th and 9th months and want an abortion of a perfectly viable and healthy baby simply because they changed their minds. Then they think that a doctor would actually do that.

 

[angrysoba]

Joe Rogan and Alex Jones decided to get a bit blitzed on booze and drugs in order to figure the whole thing out.

NSFW or and NSFSM:

 

[Ziggurat]

Some people seem to thing that women go to the doctor in their 8th and 9th months and want an abortion of a perfectly viable and healthy baby simply because they changed their minds. Then they think that a doctor would actually do that.

I wonder why.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would say that the mother still has the ability to make decisions in the best interests of a child. A newborn who survived a botched abortion may still have serious medical problems. She might be 19 weeks old and unable to live without a ventilator (and even then at great risk of imminent death). She might be born with microcephaly or unformed organs. In those cases, I believe the mother should be allowed to choose to let the child die peacefully in her arms.

This bill would fundamentally alter the very nature of the parent-child relationship. Also, it's stupid.

What if the fetus is delivered at 30 weeks, and is likely to be perfectly healthy with a bit of medical care? Should the mother be allowed to deny that child that medical care?

Hell, let's say a mother gives birth normally at full term, and the baby needs no special medical attention at all. Should that mother be allowed to deny that baby food? She has the ability to make decisions in the best interest of that child, after all.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Bull like this is why the abortion debate goes nowhere. Have you heard of Christian Scientists? Anti-vaxers? People think they do have the right to deny children medical care. Has nothing to do with abortion, especially late-term abortion, which happens with NON-HEALTHY babies, often it's to remove a dead body. Late term abortions occur when the woman WANTS to be a mother and for some reason or other she isn't going to get to be.

Laws are in place already to protect an infant from neglect. Laws are not needed to protect the dead or dying in order to kill an otherwise healthy adult female.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What if the fetus is delivered at 30 weeks, and is likely to be perfectly healthy with a bit of medical care? Should the mother be allowed to deny that child that medical care?

Does the "medical care" require the baby to stay hooked up to the mother as a life support machine?

Hell, let's say a mother gives birth normally at full term, and the baby needs no special medical attention at all. Should that mother be allowed to deny that baby food? She has the ability to make decisions in the best interest of that child, after all.

Does the "feeding" require the baby to stay hooked up to the mother as a life support machine?

I know this shocks people but women are not looking for loopholes that allow them to murder their children.

 

[Ziggurat]

Late term abortions occur when the woman WANTS to be a mother and for some reason or other she isn't going to get to be.

That isn't always the case. There really are instances where a pregnant woman decides very late in the pregnancy that she doesn't want to have a baby, and would rather abort it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does the "medical care" require the baby to stay hooked up to the mother as a life support machine?

Since I explicitly stated that the fetus in my hypothetical was delivered, obviously not. Why did you even think your question was worth asking?

I know this shocks people but women are not looking for loopholes that allow them to murder their children.

I know this shocks people, but yes, actually, some of them are. And we know this because some of them already have.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's extremely rare. Just like welfare fraud. A few thousand people are gaming the system, lets let millions starve!

 

[Ziggurat]

It's extremely rare. Just like welfare fraud. A few thousand people are gaming the system, lets let millions starve!

I didn't say it was common. And while we don't abolish welfare to stop welfare fraud, we do try to crack down on it. I'm not defending the particulars of this bill, which I'm not that familiar with. The devil is in the details, and good intentions can still go awry. But there is an actual problem it's trying to address, even if it should be addressed differently.

The Democrat's base won't let them do this, but they'd benefit from proposing an alternative bill of their own.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

The perfect scenario of every pregnancy being a complete success producing a healthy wanted baby without harm to the mother cannot be allowed to be enemy to the good scenario of most pregnancies being so while accounting for those that are not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't say it was common. And while we don't abolish welfare to stop welfare fraud, we do try to crack down on it.

Yep we will spend millions to save thousands at most, see drug testing welfare applicants for example. Great ways to get the money to the corperations that donate to the politicians and out of the hands of starving kids.

The Democrat's base won't let them do this, but they'd benefit from proposing an alternative bill of their own.

Why? That suggests that there is a problem that is not currently addressed with existing laws. I know it is great to make women suffer as is seen in many of these cases but do we really need to enshrine their suffering into law?

My personal favorites are how badly catholic hospitals treat women going through failed wanted pregnancies myself they are finally getting the punishment they deserve for their lack of faith that caused the failure of their pregnancy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? That suggests that there is a problem that is not currently addressed with existing laws.

Well, yes. There is a problem not currently addressed with existing laws, especially with expanding late-term abortion access. And Democrats would do well to try to address it, so that they can be seen as moderates and not extremists on abortions. Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra was popular, but the Democrats have been explicitly getting rid of the "rare" part. There's a big section of the electorate which was OK with safe and legal, but wants that rare part included.

And not without reason. Regardless of what you think about the legality of abortions, they are signs of failure. There is no circumstance in which an abortion is the optimal outcome, only ones in which something goes wrong to make the optimal outcome unachievable, leaving it arguably the least bad option. There are a hell of a lot of voters who think abortion should be legal but recognize it as a bad thing, and they are repulsed by the "free abortions on demand with no restrictions" crowd.

 

[autumn1971]

Well, yes. There is a problem not currently addressed with existing laws, especially with expanding late-term abortion access. And Democrats would do well to try to address it, so that they can be seen as moderates and not extremists on abortions. Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra was popular, but the Democrats have been explicitly getting rid of the "rare" part. There's a big section of the electorate which was OK with safe and legal, but wants that rare part included.

And not without reason. Regardless of what you think about the legality of abortions, they are signs of failure. There is no circumstance in which an abortion is the optimal outcome, only ones in which something goes wrong to make the optimal outcome unachievable, leaving it arguably the least bad option. There are a hell of a lot of voters who think abortion should be legal but recognize it as a bad thing, and they are repulsed by the "free abortions on demand with no restrictions" crowd.

Your second paragraph is wrong in its entirety.

If a woman does not want a fetus to remain in her uterus the optimal outcome is to remove the fetus.
The right to bodily autonomy should be legal, available, safe, and none of your ******* business.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, yes. There is a problem not currently addressed with existing laws, especially with expanding late-term abortion access. And Democrats would do well to try to address it, so that they can be seen as moderates and not extremists on abortions. Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra was popular, but the Democrats have been explicitly getting rid of the "rare" part. There's a big section of the electorate which was OK with safe and legal, but wants that rare part included.

Yea except of course that they don't want to do anything that would involve things that would actually decrease abortion numbers like funding planned parenthood to get more effective birth control out to the people. Or are we at the argument that any form of birth control also counts as abortion?

The goal isn't to prevent abortions it is to punish women for their sinful nature.

And not without reason. Regardless of what you think about the legality of abortions, they are signs of failure. There is no circumstance in which an abortion is the optimal outcome, only ones in which something goes wrong to make the optimal outcome unachievable, leaving it arguably the least bad option. There are a hell of a lot of voters who think abortion should be legal but recognize it as a bad thing, and they are repulsed by the "free abortions on demand with no restrictions" crowd.

Evidence? I know I know abortion is wrong for ectopic pregnancies just ask any catholic hospital you have to hurt the woman more and damage her fertility to justify saving her sinful life.

That is why democrats and those who are pro choice do things like promote comprehensive sex education that is actually effective at reducing abortions. But that isn't really the goal, it is as always to punish women.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your second paragraph is wrong in its entirety.

If a woman does not want a fetus to remain in her uterus the optimal outcome is to remove the fetus.

If a woman does not want a fetus in her uterus, then the optimal outcome is to never have the fetus she doesn't want in the first place. That is in every way preferable to getting rid of it after the fact. So why does she have a fetus in her uterus that she doesn't want? Because something already went wrong, making the optimal outcome unavailable, like I said. All other outcomes, including abortion, are suboptimal. The ONLY scenario in which an abortion is the optimal outcome is one in which a woman becomes pregnant in order to have an abortion, because the abortion itself is desirable for some reason. I think we can ignore that scenario for this discussion, but if you feel differently, go ahead and make a case for it.

You haven't shown that I'm wrong, you've only shown that you aren't actually thinking about this in any depth.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yea except of course that they don't want to do anything that would involve things that would actually decrease abortion numbers like funding planned parenthood to get more effective birth control out to the people. Or are we at the argument that any form of birth control also counts as abortion?

Who exactly is "they" in this scenario? Because it sounds like you're talking about a part of the electorate which doesn't want abortion to be legal. And that's explicitly the part I wasn't talking about.

There are people between the extremes, you know.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Who exactly is "they" in this scenario? Because it sounds like you're talking about a part of the electorate which doesn't want abortion to be legal. And that's explicitly the part I wasn't talking about.

There are people between the extremes, you know.

Yes advocating education is an extreme position now. Right up there with the way things should work like the 11 year old rape victim who was forced to give birth recently

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47400819

Yep that vs comprehensive education are really the two extremist positions.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes advocating education is an extreme position now. Right up there with the way things should work like the 11 year old rape victim who was forced to give birth recently

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47400819

Yep that vs comprehensive education are really the two extremist positions.

This is the USA politics section, not the Argentinian politics section.