SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Sulla (5173)
(email not shown publicly)
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门CCPCorruption
Normally I don't like to talk about items that are going on in different US States than the one that I live in, but if something like this passes in Virginia I see no reason why it would not also pass in Oregon.
A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-77, 18.2-73, 18.2-74, 18.2-76, and 32.1-127 of the Code of Virginia, relating to abortions; eliminate certain requirements.
Link to the bill:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491
I found the changes and how they could be applied very interesting.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of § 18.2-72, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy provided such procedure is performed in a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
(b) 2. The physician and two consulting physicians certify certifies and so enter enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in their the physician's medical opinion, based upon their the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.
(c) 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.
21. Shall require that each hospital that is equipped to provide life-sustaining treatment shall develop a policy governing determination of the medical and ethical appropriateness of proposed medical care, which shall include (i) a process for obtaining a second opinion regarding the medical and ethical appropriateness of proposed medical care in cases in which a physician has determined proposed care to be medically or ethically inappropriate; (ii) provisions for review of the determination that proposed medical care is medically or ethically inappropriate by an interdisciplinary medical review committee and a determination by the interdisciplinary medical review committee regarding the medical and ethical appropriateness of the proposed health care; and (iii) requirements for a written explanation of the decision reached by the interdisciplinary medical review committee, which shall be included in the patient's medical record. Such policy shall ensure that the patient, his agent, or the person authorized to make medical decisions pursuant to § 54.1-2986 (a) are informed of the patient's right to obtain his medical record and to obtain an independent medical opinion and (b) afforded reasonable opportunity to participate in the medical review committee meeting. Nothing in such policy shall prevent the patient, his agent, or the person authorized to make medical decisions pursuant to § 54.1-2986 from obtaining legal counsel to represent the patient or from seeking other remedies available at law, including seeking court review, provided that the patient, his agent, or the person authorized to make medical decisions pursuant to § 54.1-2986, or legal counsel provides written notice to the chief executive officer of the hospital within 14 days of the date on which the physician's determination that proposed medical treatment is medically or ethically inappropriate is documented in the patient's medical record;
Some key portions from the legislation are above, I neglected to bring in the stricken language about women needing ultrasounds and similar requirements because I think that is a separate issue.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/virginia-dems-attempt-to-pass-bill-allowing-abortions-up-to-40-weeks/ includes a video from the legislative proceedings with questions being asked of the bills sponsor Delegate Kathy Tran.
During Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran's presentation of the bill on Tuesday, Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked her about the full extent of the bill's leniency.
"How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?" Gilbert asked.
"Or physical health," Tran said.
"Okay," Gilbert replied. "I'm talking about the mental health."
"I mean, through the third trimester," Tran said. "The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks."
"Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?" Gilbert asked.
"Yup, I don't think we have a limit in the bill," Tran said.
"Where it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she's about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?" Gilbert asked. "She's dilating."
Tran replied that was a decision the woman and her doctor would have to make before choosing to have an abortion. Gilbert asked specifically if the measure would allow for abortion right before birth.
"My bill would allow that, yes," Tran said.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/virginia-dems-attempt-to-pass-bill-allowing-abortions-up-to-40-weeks/ has a video of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam being interviewed about the subject. The Governor says that if the woman so wanted an abortion and was certified
So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if thats what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
How can there be any discussion about this after the baby is already born?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 30 2019, @07:49PM
The mythical fourth trimester abortion is codified.
Let's kill some kids.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @08:57PM (8 children)
This isn't "I don't want my child" and besides -
No post birth abortion, incredibly rare situations, and you're what? Asking women to deliver a baby even though it will likely ruin their own lives and impact the child's life as well? I understand the anger over killing an unborn child but in this case the reverse is true, you want to demand that a woman seriously endanger her own life.
This journal reminds me of the shop I went into that had a news article posted on the wall about doctors basically doing this. Upon digging into the actual story it was about a super rare occurrence and ending the baby's life was actually a bit of mercy.
Step 1. Use brain
Step 2. ...
Step 3. PROFIT!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @10:52PM (7 children)
Well, at least you're right about "impact the child's life". The kid dies.
Look, at that stage, abortion has the same physical impact as a normal childbirth. (procedure: inject baby with poison, induce childbirth, chuck baby in trash) There is no medical condition that requires abortion in the third trimester.
Adoption is possible, so this all boils down to wanting a baby dead, dead, dead. Nobody else can have it. It must die.
Meanwhile, New Jersey just passed a law to protect pregnant cows from slaughter. Cows!!! Baby cows have a right to life, but baby humans don't.
Reagan had a great observation: all the people in favor of abortion have already been born. Hmmm. Oddly, they aren't killing themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @10:59PM
Actually, suicide of the mother has long been an effective abortion alternative.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 30 2019, @11:42PM (5 children)
Incorrect, and after a few mins of search the more common reason is that the baby is severely deformed and not viable. Again, this requires oversight from at least two doctors.
Tell me, are you ready to adopt and foot the medical bills of all fetuses that will likely die? Are you prepared to at least support universal healthcare which might take some pressure off of such decisions? I don't think money is too big a part here, these situations seem more tied to actual MEDICAL conditions, but put up or shut up.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @02:48AM (2 children)
By doing that abortion, you don't save the mother. She still has to birth her child, now dead. If anything, birthing a dead child will be far more traumatic, especially as a willing accomplice.
By doing that abortion, you don't save her child. This should be damn obvious. Being "not viable" doesn't mean you have to kill her child. That is also not the norm for these late abortions; most are perfectly viable.
You're worried about medical bills? Oh really... so you support letting parents kill teenagers that become expensive? If so, congratulations on the consistency, and it will be entertaining to see somebody push to legalize that. If not, then you really aren't worried about the medical bills. You just want the baby dead, dead, dead.
This, BTW, is literally what led to the holocaust. Somebody wrote a letter to Hitler begging for euthanasia of a relative, and then all sorts of mentally disabled people got killed, and it snowballed after that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:49AM
whatever you say dr. doom
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:33AM
What are you talking about? The bill specifically says, "3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage
mustshall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability." Viability is legally defined as when a fetus has a 50% chance of survival outside the womb. In addition, from what I've seen, Virginia seems to continue to follow the duty/requirement distinction for shall vs must. This means the protection for the fetus is arguably stronger, at least until Virginia transitions to the more "modern" interpretation rule, which is unlikely in a case affecting this statute.(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:11AM (1 child)
People get abortions in the third trimester all the time. The worst part is that many aren't even done for medical reasons! Of course, polite society calls them "inducements" and hardly ever talks about those done merely for the mother's convenience of just being done with the whole pregnancy thing or those done so the doctor and most of the hospital staff doesn't have to work on the weekend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @09:18PM
Wow. I'm honestly surprised that was marked as "troll." I thought it was a well established fact. For example, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/why-are-so-many-babies-born-around-8-00-a-m/ [scientificamerican.com]
Sure, the language is a bit strong, but so is the reaction to this law that doesn't allow for "post-birth abortion," which I think they mean as murdering a viable child after it is born, and explicitly creates a duty to use life-saving measures in abortions that occur after viability. Not to mention that after viability, the doctor's ethical duty legally includes the fetus as well. Most doctors are going to error on the side of caution, as it only takes one family member to tie you up in civil, ethical, and criminal litigation for years.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 30 2019, @09:02PM (16 children)
it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy
That doesn't say what you think it says.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @01:09PM (15 children)
There is no right to reside in someone else's body to keep yourself alive, so even if the fetus/baby has human rights, it makes no difference. So, women should be able to terminate the pregnancy at any point and for any reason.
Point out that abortions in the later stages of pregnancy are rare and overwhelmingly for medical reasons, but also don't forget that fundamental principle. Too many people use flimsy arguments against forced-birthers.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 01 2019, @07:41PM (14 children)
Strong agree.
However the abortion rulebook as we know it will probably change once artificial wombs enter the picture. Suddenly, people who want children will choose to use artificial wombs instead of carrying children themselves (in the case of women, or possibly someone with a uterus implant), or turning to a surrogate.
In that scenario, anyone going the natural route could probably continue to get an abortion at any time. Because surgery to remove the fetus and put it in an artificial womb would still pose a risk of infection/etc. to the mother.
But if the embryo is grown in an artificial womb from the start, then there is no reason to abort other than a medical issue affecting the fetus. Maybe you could get hit with a negligent homicide charge for accidentally pulling the plug or otherwise failing to maintain the artificial womb (loading the nutrient tank or whatever).
If it can be proven that an artificial womb results in less birth defects (due to weird hormone fluctuations, or unavoidable environmental poisons encountered by mothers), maybe it will be considered unethical to not use IVF + an artificial womb. Not to mention that abortions on a whim could be effectively banned.
I think all of this will go down within 20 years or so. Better start thinking about it now.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday February 01 2019, @10:17PM (13 children)
Best to start investing in companies making hormones to simulate pregnancy for the purpose of allowing breastfeeding. Either that or formula stock.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 02 2019, @03:57AM
Hey, Sulla - it's far too late for me to look this up tonight - gotta go to work.
Vermont is supposed to be considering a bill that makes abortion a "god given right" or some such shit, "at any time, for any reason, by any means". No regulation of abortion at all, right up to the last day. I've not heard that they are considering post-partem abortion, but that may be in there too. But, the "god give right" nonsense is worthy of note. Woman demands, state supplies, end of story.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 02 2019, @05:28PM (4 children)
Got it - it's "fundamental right".
https://christiannews.net/2019/02/01/vermont-bill-proclaims-fundamental-right-to-abortion-but-no-independent-rights-for-unborn/ [christiannews.net]
And, note the "troll" mod on my previous post.
PDF of the bill - https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/H-0057/H-0057%20As%20Introduced.pdf [vermont.gov]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Sulla on Saturday February 02 2019, @11:34PM
Godless commies like rights to be given by man so they can be revoked. China calls them "western rights" so they can not give them to their own people. Thing with god given rights, regardless of if you believe in god, is that they cannot be revoked. This is what the commies hate the most, is that they cannot take away your right to life and liberty.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday February 04 2019, @06:04PM (2 children)
Seems perfectly reasonable to me...the alternative is to argue that a parasite has more right to your body than you do yourself. I really don't understand how such an absurd line of reasoning is still being debated in freakin' 2019...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04 2019, @10:18PM (1 child)
Because its only a parasite when it comes to whether or not the mother wants it but not a choice when she and that parasite is murdered. Either its just one count of murder and the parasite is a parasite or its a kid and its two counts of murder. Can't have both.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday February 07 2019, @10:00PM
New York law resolved this, killing a pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy is only one count of murder.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday February 03 2019, @05:19AM (6 children)
From what I was reading when the wife was pregnant, just lots of sucking is enough to trigger milk production, though probably not enough. This is even true with men.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday February 03 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)
Might be possible? With my twins my wife wasn't producing enough milk at first and neither boy was willing to latch long enough to get her to start producing even with all the pregnancy hormones. We ended up needing to use doner milk and formula.I guess though its a way to only get the fittest to survive. I dont know how normal this is, as they say everything bad that happens to women during/post pregnancy is normal to try and keep them from getting post-pardum depression.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday February 03 2019, @09:09PM
My wife started slow, I think it is normal. In her case, it didn't take long before she was waking up the boy to feed him. As she said, she now understands why the cows line up to be milked. Twins would be that more demanding, unless like my nieces, little itty things at birth.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 03 2019, @06:33PM (3 children)
It's a good excuse to start sucking on nipples, at least.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday February 03 2019, @09:52PM (2 children)
Who needs an excuse? OTOH, not being a milk person, I missed sucking on the nipple for that year or so.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday February 04 2019, @10:22PM (1 child)
-1 Sad!
Thats a shame. I have been enjoying it to the fullest extent possible.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday February 04 2019, @10:28PM
Each to their own.
(Score: 2, Informative) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday January 31 2019, @12:35AM
And New York is doing it too. So horrible. So horrible. But you won't read about it on Soylent New. Another censored story!! foxnews.com/politics/new-york-celebrates-legalizing-abortion-until-birth-as-catholic-bishops-question-cuomos-faith [foxnews.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:46AM (21 children)
That said, I don't see any huge problems in the language of the bill itself. I won't beg the wrath of the neo-feminists yet again by pointing out that there is no provision for any conversation with the father; it doesn't matter when there was no such provision before right?
So what are the changes. They struck the requirement that abortions be performed in a licensed hospital. Deregulation is good, isn't it?
It no longer takes 3 physicians to certify that the operation is medically necessary to save the woman's life. Just one who's willing to sign a legally binding document he can be sued out of existence over will do. If it was my wife or daughter etc. whose life was at stake I think I'd see this as a good thing - well that's why I *do* see it as a good thing.
Converting 'must' to 'shall' is a fine point, I'm afraid I don't have time to research the jurisdiction just now and be sure exactly what it means. Maybe it's bad here? Seems like a softening though, and again, deregulation is good. When the patient and the doctor both agree that a procedure is necessary to prevent death we generally don't want the procedure to be delayed while the bureaucracy is reassured in triplicate that every possible gadget is available before we proceed.
So what's your beef? Do you think abortion should be illegal, and you're just trying to find little cracks to push it away bit by bit?
If so, how are you different from gun control nuts that think guns should be illegal, and look for little cracks to advance that agenda bit by bit?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Sulla on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:22PM (17 children)
Going to respond only in part right now
Hard to explain my position on abortion. In general i think people should be able to do what they want, as long as i am not required to pay for it. It seems to me to be clearly murder to kill a fetus that is developed to the point it is viable outside the womb, but i wont tell people what they can and can't do. If they want me to pay for it then fuck them i want it illegal, but they made the first move in attempting to force me to be a part of murder.
Mostly i posted this so in 10 years when a few of the super far left libs are pushing for post-birth abortion i can find this where they claimed they weren't. There will be a case soon in Virginia where a woman in labor says she wants an abortion because having a kid right now will be too much of a mental burden and she isn't ready to be a mother, the physician will agree, and the fetus will be born before the abortion can be done. The governors words then apply to this situation, i dont see what else "discussion" can imply.
Ultimately this bill wont pass and even if it did the supreme court would kill it, which in some ways is a shame. The language stricken about the ultrasound requirements and numbers of physicians seem fine to me as i think they are an unconstitutional burden placed on the mother. But they should have included more language about what requests that happen when a woman is in labor.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:45PM
Where does that allow for what you are talking about?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:49PM (14 children)
After birth, in the circumstances you outline, adoption is the only acceptable outcome.
I just wish that both sides of this issue would spend more of their energy addressing the underlying causes of the problem, which is I understand a much deeper and more difficult thing to come to grips with.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday February 01 2019, @12:08AM (2 children)
Interested in discussing this
How about
Abortion is fully deregulated
Hospitals/Physicians cannot be compelled to participate in an abortion or prevent an abortion from happening
Fetus can be aborted at any stage for any reason or no reason
Tax dollars can not go to fund abortion as you cannot compel a person to pay for something against their wishes
Insurance companies can choose whether or not they will provide coverage
Legal rights are granted upon exiting the womb
If a pregnant woman is murdered/involuntary manslaughter/etc, the charges can only be against the woman
I stumble with Human/God given rights. I was going to suggest the legal stipulation that Human Rights are granted when the fetus crosses the womb as a threshold. But I really hate the term "human rights" and man cannot stipulate "god given" rights. Seems dangerous to play with what is / when human rights can and cannot be extended, easier to go with "god given" even if I don't believe in a god because that takes it out of mans ability to change on a whim. I'll go with "legal rights" for now.
Thoughts?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 01 2019, @06:07AM
Human rights are the rights that the Declaration of Independence says are "endowed by their Creator." This is neutral or even Deist language, there is no presumption to tell us who or what is ultimately our Creator; the point is that given our form of existence, these things follow, so whomever or whatever gave us that form of existence, may also be said to have given us those rights.
Human rights, G_d given rights, whatever you want to call them, the point is that they are not granted by the legal system, not granted by the government, not granted by other men. They are inherent, they may be respected or violated, but no one can nullify them or revoke them.
I'll give you that if you think a fetus is a child, then they couldn't be waived. A mother can't consent to the murder of her child, it's absurd. This is what makes that misunderstanding a poison pill for the entire notion of rights. If you accept that equivalence then ultimately I don't see any way to hold onto what we think of as western civilization at all; the entire structure is ultimately rendered untenable as we go down the logical path from there.
But a fetus isn't a child. Any more than a caterpillar is a butterfly. I often hear the term "unborn child." A term invented by propagandists, it's a parallel construction to 'undead corpse' and one is exactly as likely as the other to occur in reality rather than a work of horror fiction. They are self-destroying terms. Corpses are dead, children are born, the human body becomes individual at birth, and ceases to be animate at death, only in between those two events can the notion of rights granted by the Creator really make sense.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 01 2019, @07:58AM
Canada has no abortion laws, well the regular laws about practicing medicine and such. Fetuses have no rights as they are not legally human until birth. Hospitals, along with the Provinces that run the hospitals do have regulations and can decide on which medical procedures they allow, for example my local hospital doesn't do births along with a lot of types of surgery, probably including abortion. It seems to work generally though there are Provinces (actually one I believe) where abortions aren't available, some Provinces are small. Never heard of late abortions, at least without a compelling reason and generally we don't have a large number of abortions due to sex education and birth control being available, 2.23/1000 compared to the US, 4.17/1000 in 2003, rates seem to be dropping in both countries.
Tax dollars do pay for many (most?) abortions, just like they pay for a lot of stuff against some tax payers wishes.
The courts do seem to frown on attacks on pregnant women and are likely to be harsher on sentencing but legally, it is the women attacked.
The reason we have no abortion laws is based on the Right of Security of Person, which is the right the Supreme Court used to strike down the abortion laws back in 1988. Governments are reluctant to even talk about abortion laws, we had some high profile jury nullification's on the subject back in the '70's and the people were very unhappy when the government appealed and over rode those nullifications (no double jeopardy right until '82 when we repatriated the Constitution and added the Charter of Rights)
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 01 2019, @08:03AM (10 children)
Lack of education and reasonable access to reasonably priced birth control?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 01 2019, @09:20AM (9 children)
And treating the symptom rather than the cause, I'm afraid.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 01 2019, @04:32PM (8 children)
Ah, being human.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 01 2019, @05:56PM (7 children)
Is it unimaginable to you that, given birth control and medical information, humans could learn to quit unintentionally creating lives?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 01 2019, @07:48PM (6 children)
So we're back to education and available birth control.
The problem is that there is a large spectrum of impulse control in people for various reasons.
One example is fetal alcohol syndrome where sufferers can have (very) limited impulse control. Prisons are full of them and I wouldn't be surprised if they have a large number of unplanned pregnancies.
OTOH, there are people with very low sex drives who have no problem avoiding unintended pregnancy. These people don't stand out, especially now a days when being unmarried/childless is quite socially acceptable, as they fit in with ideal morals.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 02 2019, @02:20AM (5 children)
No, you're missing the point.
We ALREADY HAVE those things, and yet we haven't eliminated the problem. Far from it. CDC estimated that 49% of pregnancies in the USA were unintended - in 2006, not 1806. Among women <=19yo it was more like 80%.
As I say, that's treating the symptoms not the causes. The causes are mostly social and economic changes. Having children and taking care of them has gotten much more expensive and much more 'problematic' might be the best way to say it. It's far less inviting than it was for previous generations. That's part of it - without that you might not have fewer pregnancies but you would have fewer unintended or unwanted pregnancies, which is what we're talking about after all.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday February 02 2019, @03:28AM (4 children)
My understanding is that in many States, there is very little sex education, especially at the early age when it helps the most, due to religious reasons, very little access to birth control, for religious reasons and as a whole America is still very Puritan. Does the average high school have condom vending machines? Is it easy for an underage girl to go to her Doctor, whip out her medical insurance card (government issued here) and get a reasonably priced birth control prescription without her parents knowing or being shunned by the Doctor/Nurses? Even for older women, is it easy and cheap to get a birth control prescription in most all States?
I live in a bible belt here in Canada, those religious people are nuts in their attitude towards sex (and very unchristian in lots of other attitudes). Anti-abortion but the last thing they want is educated kids when it comes to sex and they sure get upset about access to birth control. They seem to think if they don't tell the kids about sex, they'll never figure it out. Just have to watch most any mammal, sex comes naturally and it is a lot easier to divert a strong urge such as sex then to stop it. These religious people would never tell/encourage their kids to masturbate either.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday February 03 2019, @01:11AM (3 children)
Only thing i can comment on education wise (as i agree it is a situation where more is always better) is that i grew up in a very liberal city with sex ed in every grade from 5-12. In 5, 7 and 9th grades it was indepth and the remainder was a passing thing. My school had condoms available to any who wanted them. My graduating class ended with three single mothers and two girls with abortions. I dont think an education can fix stupidity, although it might reduce the number of times it happens.
My class also had extremely high drug use, so that could also play a part with lowering inhabitions and not thinking about consequences as well
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday February 03 2019, @05:13AM (2 children)
Yea, it's complex. I remember one girl who was rumoured to have quit due to pregnancy. My son, who graduated 4 years back, doesn't remember any, which doesn't mean there weren't secret abortions.
Trying to research, DDG wants to give Canadian results. This article, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/canadas-teen-birth-and-abortion-rate-drops-by-369-per-cent/article571685/ [theglobeandmail.com] claims that Canada's teen pregnancy rate has dropped by 36.9% between '96 and '06 with America having a 25% drop. This study, https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Abortion_e.htm [uottawa.ca] points out the drop is least in Quebec, which also has sporadic sex education. It also has some stats that might interest you about abortion in Canada with no laws. Eg, 90% done in first trimester, only 2-3% after 16 weeks and past 20-21 weeks only for compelling health or genetic reasons.
This study by the NIH, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/ [nih.gov] seems to state the best sex education is a mix, birth control and abstinence. Also has statistics on the various States.
Personally, I don't like abortion but also don't like removing a womans right to decide whether she wants to bring a pregnancy to term, as well as history has shown that prohibition just makes things worse, back alley abortionists in the case of abortion. Best seems to find the best way to educate. The other problems such as poverty are harder to deal with.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday February 03 2019, @06:32PM (1 child)
I generally fall into the category of being okay with full legalization as long as i am not compelled to pay because of moral issues. Healthcare groups would work well for this, some places already make their christian orginazation healthcare groups so i don't see why pro-abortion groups can't either. If i was able to put aside the morals for money a good thing to do would build an aflac-like assurance for abortion/protection services that covers abortions/blan b/birth control. I am sure you could get enough new yorkers, californians, and oregonians onboard to make it quite profitable.
In general i can't imagine more education is bad. Although i absolutely hated the classes. I don't particularily enjoy three weeks of classes on jacking off in 5th grade, but this is just disagreements over content.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday February 03 2019, @09:47PM
Yes, a problem with taxes (and other group things like insurance) is they go to pay for things that people find immoral, whether abortion or certain types of military conflicts and lots in between. OTOH, they also go to birthing and keeping people alive. Cost for my child's birth to us was zero besides the regular medical premiums and taxes.
I'll note that about half of abortions in Canada take place in private clinics, paid out of pocket I assume.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @12:40AM
Here you go, the left claiming Trump is wrong about the left wanting exactly this:
https://i.redd.it/7g8e34b81rd21.png [i.redd.it]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday February 04 2019, @06:12PM (2 children)
If the father is that determined to have his own baby then he can either hire a surrogate himself or start researching womb transplants. As long as he's trying to grow that child in someone else's body without a contract, it's going to be their decision what happens to it.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday February 05 2019, @01:00AM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 05 2019, @02:12PM
The best way to immediately fix many of the issues with child support is with improved access to all forms of birth control, including abortion.
If you hit someone with your car, even if it's an accident, even if you aren't the one who got injured, you're still going to be paying at least part of the medical bills. This is no different...even if the pregnancy is an accident, even if you want nothing to do with it, you're still part of the cause and therefore partly responsible for the effects. Now, IMO, "I'm willing to pay for an abortion" (while one is still possible of course) ought to be an out -- if she doesn't want one, that's her choice and her responsibility. But that requires specific legislation, and such legislation would be seen as encouraging abortion and therefore would probably be unlikely to pass.
Another option is child insurance...although I'm not sure that our economy is quite in a state where that would be a workable scheme yet. But if society agrees that we need to encourage people to have children -- and based on existing regulation, from abortion restrictions to tax benefits, it seems that we do -- then one logical solution would be a pregnancy insurance, paid by tax dollars, which would pay the costs of child care. Of course, seeing how badly the existing foster care systems get abused by people trying to take advantage of similar payment schemes, I don't think we can quite make that work yet. Then again, it has some added efficiencies -- both in terms of having a single payer system for things like early childhood education, as well as the potential to bypass certain legal issues that make it harder to detect child abuse -- if the government pays for everything for that child, then it seems reasonable that the government could mandate annual physical exams and such which could help detect abuse or neglect. And of course the system would be voluntary, but if that means foregoing free education, healthcare, childcare, possibly even food and housing stipends, then I doubt may would opt out. Or it could be as simple as a UBI where the child gets one too, but I think that has a bigger abuse potential.
I think the more long-term solution is just going to be reproduction or complete child care (if we're talking a future with no human wombs necessary) as a profession. That also would probably need to be tax-supported, but it would be more like Brave New World where parents get replaced by a class of certified teachers and child care specialists. I realize Brave New World itself was intended to show a dystopian future, but I really do think we can do better at raising children than whatever idiot happens to knock someone up. Most of us can probably identify at least one parent who *really* shouldn't be raising kids; and it's an important enough job that maybe it ought to be left to a professional.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:51AM (9 children)
"The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if thats what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
I made the mistake of opening the bill in the browser, and began parsing the language of the bill. That would take much more time than I have right now since work calls. I looked back at the journal entry, and there is the answer, staring me in the face.
1. the infant would be delivered
2. the infant would be kept comfortable
3. the infant can be resuscitated
4. then a discussion takes place to determine if the mother wants to keep the child
5. is unstated - the infant can be put to death if that's what the mother decides
Note the use of the term "infant". The authors are perfectly aware that they have moved from the legal gray areas of abortion, into infanticide.
If/when we legalize infanticide, how long until we legalize human sacrifice more generally?
I note the use of "40 weeks" in the title of the article. A very quick search offers 38, 39, and 40 weeks as typical lengths of human gestation, and one link suggests that pregnancies vary as much as 5 weeks. That matters little though, as few women can determine with accuracy exactly when they were impregnated. What matters is, the infant might be a week old, or two weeks, maybe even a month old, when someone decides to put it to death.
This is most definitely infanticide, and not embryocide.
Is this where our society is going? I don't really believe in hell, but I sure hope that Margaret Sanger is burning in hell.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:36AM (1 child)
Infanticide, eh? Guess I must have missed this part:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @03:29PM
And then a discussion will ensew
What about?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:56PM (5 children)
https://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016 [reason.com]
They rag on Trump a little bit but that is fair since he stuck his fat face out there spouting anti-abortion propaganda to pander to his base. Most other sources are christian sites with more uninformed propaganda and I wasn't going to spend all morning looking for one without any political mentions.
Aside from the political angle the article goes over the stats and brings some more common sense into the discussion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 31 2019, @07:07PM (4 children)
Good article. A couple things though. First, progressives continue to push for ever more liberal laws. In this case, with the bill in Virginia, they are most definitely trying to eliminate any need for a doctor to get a second and third opinion. A single doctor's opinion is sufficient to go through with the abortion. Enter a Doctor Kermit, and in effect, anytime, any reason, any means that works, including delivering the baby live, then bashing his head in. Or, in Kermit's particular case, snipping the spinal column with a pair of scissors. Just one doctor with a valid license, and morals and ethics skewed toward making a dollar.
Second, the Virginia bill specifically extends legal abortions to xxx weeks. Read the proposed law, and there is NO TIME LIMIT. In the interview quoted in TFS, it is specifically stated that there is no limit. No limits - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th trimester.
Going back to the article you link to -
Should we interpret that to mean that 1% occure in 40th week, 1% in 39th, etc? Thus, 20% of abortions take place after the fifth month? Maybe more precise language would make that clearer.
Yes - that's what this article is all about. Progressives want to loosen the laws, removing time limits, oversight, or any other minor little detail that might prevent a woman aborting her baby. There IS money to be made with abortion, after all.
This next bit helps to clear up my earlier question:
Trump supported abortion - until he found out exactly what a very late term abortion really is. Odd - the same can be said of many women, as well. Funny how that works. So long as the baby remains very tiny, very silent, and not-very-recognizably human, it's easy to pretend that you're not murdering a baby. Given a more-easily-recognizable human, it gets more difficult to pretend. Given a full-term baby, who only awaits the chance to draw his first breath, it's almost impossible to pretend that you're not murdering a human being.
And, that is pretty much the whole reason that most of the US has outlawed late term abortions, except in cases that threaten the health and welfare of the mother.
It takes a monster to murder babies.
Yet, here in Virginia, we see a bill to eliminate any language in the law that might restrict an any-time abortion. There is even the opening for rationalizing infanticide. And, again, that spokeswoman, in the interview, made it clear that she anticipated babies being put to death AFTER BEING LIVE BIRTHED!!
Progressivism, hard at work.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday January 31 2019, @11:11PM
The statistic references all abortions put together that occur after the 20-21st week (see here [wikipedia.org]). The extremely low number is because those are virtually always where the mother finds out that the fetus/infant will die during birth or shortly after being born due to catastrophic malformations. In those cases, intact D&E ('partial birth' abortion) [wikipedia.org] is often used so the mother can hold the fetus/infant to help her grieve the loss. The head is only collapsed (in which case it's partial) if hydrocephalus or other malformations make it too large to pass through the birth canal.
Are mothers "monstrous" for deciding to not spend weeks or months carrying a terminal fetus that is guaranteed to either be stillborn, die mid-birth, or die shortly after birth, and that they fear will suffer in the process?
Considering the woman's phrasing, it sounds more to me like she's referring to the terminal cases like those: parents who choose to continue the pregnancy to the end and give birth then decide how much medical intervention to allow, or whether to go with palliative care only. (I mean, think about it: if you are going to abort a pregnancy, why on Earth would you go through the 7-9 miserable months of being pregnant, give birth, then kill it and debate whether to resuscitate it? There's just something too logically flawed about that sequence to make any sense.)
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 01 2019, @08:09AM
Canada has no abortion laws (besides the usual about practicing medicine and such that cover all medical procedures) and fetuses have no rights, and I've never heard of late stage abortions though they may happen with really deformed fetuses. Just because it is legal doesn't mean Doctors are going to do it or hospitals/private clinics are going to allow it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @06:00PM (1 child)
Anyone who's spent time around other people's crotch-spawn knows that children are not human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @06:08PM
Does that mean fucking a child is mere bestiality?
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Tuesday March 26 2019, @12:04AM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 31 2019, @05:57AM
Absolutely! Until the kid is 18... or the 75th trimester
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:25AM
Meh even less likely to happen than criminal prosecution for adultery: https://www.livesaymyers.com/adultery-crime-impact-virginia-divorce/ [livesaymyers.com]
Say if you're a woman and abortion is legal and you don't want the baby would you wait for the baby to painfully rip tears into your vagina for hours or will you kill the baby way before that happens?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday January 31 2019, @06:04PM (9 children)
I need one of those TGTF fiction macguffins (magic, sufficiently advanced technology, Aphrodite being pissed off by men's arrogance, you name it). How many people who cannot become pregnant commenting here have actually gone through the exercise of contemplating exactly what being a reproductively-capable woman is like?
(A billion and one caveats have been removed from this comment.)
I want to go on a TGTF rampage and magically zap every guy here who doesn't see why abortion is a basic human right into fully reproductively-capable women. (For fans of the TGTF genre, no mental changes for this one! That would defeat the point of the exercise.) Minimum of 3 months before before the macguffin wears off.
“Post-birth abortion” does not seem to be demonstrated by TFS. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you are dog whistling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @06:20PM (4 children)
Can it please be permanent?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @12:11AM (3 children)
Sure. Then we would get to laugh our asses off when most of them eventually transition back to living as men. I'm certain we could find a good gatekeeper psychologist to refer them to when they're ready. Can't have the complete gender transition experience without wasting a good chunk of change on one of those.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @02:08AM (2 children)
(if GP meant permanent for Kurenai/me... send up a prayer using some lapis lazuli and rose quartz and make a really convincing case to teach that disrespectful she-male faggot a permanent lesson... i'll do the same on this end too)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @06:01AM (1 child)
I'm afraid you lost me there. Will shooting up crushed gemstones make me a real girl?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04 2019, @01:02AM
Nope, didn't work. The she-male who is so ultra-right-wing he follows Jewish Marxism will just have to continue raping the female form.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @08:08PM (1 child)
When it comes to third trimester abortions, why doesn't the half of the babies that are women get to choose?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @09:21PM
lame.
What has happened is that the person is no longer able to provide life support for the child growing within them (whether due to medical complication or whim, it does not matter). And so, even if human technology is primitive compared to any sufficiently advanced macguffin suggested by GP, the humans will, nonetheless, do their best to provide alternative means of life support if necessary.
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday January 31 2019, @10:18PM (1 child)
The dogs they be whistling! There is this:
At Raw Story [rawstory.com]
I used to thing Sulla was just your average pro-business republican. Now it seems he may be Catholic. Possibly Opus Dei. Or Cosa Nostra..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31 2019, @10:31PM
I wouldn't be surprised if he was a member of the Bathtub Potatoes.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Friday February 01 2019, @03:46PM
"Save the caterpillars but the woman who is started the birthing process and is Dialating, no, we're not gonna save the kid." Hannity.
video.foxnews.com/v/5997194915001 [foxnews.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @06:52PM
Perhaps your mom will finally abort you, Sulla.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 02 2019, @06:57AM (4 children)
Governor Ralph Northam's racist yearbook photos were just discovered. He's the one dressed up as KKK, standing next to a person in blackface. Note that this isn't a high school yearbook. It's for graduate school.
You may remember his campaign ad. It's the one with a truck bearing confederate flags that chases down minorities, implying that his opponent was racist. Projection! It turns out that the governor is an actual racist.
So, I don't think the governor is viable anymore. He will now be kept comfortable while a discussion ensues.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday February 02 2019, @08:59AM (3 children)
OMG! Amazing how a Democratic Governor of Virginia could be accused of racism when any politician from Virginia, Republican or not, but especially Republican, could be accused of being racist, and evidence surfaces the proves this. But especially coincidental that this happens immediately following the Right-wing telegraph has sent the message about the bill rescinding Republican Catholic anti-women legislation? Not a coincidence. Alt-right conspiraciation!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 03 2019, @06:48PM (2 children)
There is nothing more racist you can do than push abortion legislation. As a percentage of their population far more black babies are killed than white babies by abortion. 35% of reported abortions are done to black children when the population is under 13%.
Not surprised a proven racist democrat wants more black kids dead. In virginia specifically black americans make up 45% of abortions while they make up less than 20% of the population.
Racist democrats!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @07:21PM (1 child)
This is not true, as in false, incorrect, intentionally mendacious, a lie, and stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07 2019, @10:02PM
The facts aren't false, why do you want so many to die?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday February 02 2019, @11:22PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/battle-over-virginia-abortion-measure-roils-multistate-plans-by-advocates-to-lock-in-rights-protections/2019/02/02/01283f36-2637-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]