Pro-choice

[SoonerBounce]

Bottom line, 24 weeks, from a pro life perspective, shouldn't be the deciding factor. But it is a starting point that was at least upheld in Casey. Getting the country to move the issue further to the right is going to take time and a different strategy than what is currently being used.

I get what you are saying but I can't support something that I believe is still wrong

Nice write up

Most are viable at 24 weeks...what is more important to me is the point at which zero percent are viable....I don't know what that point is...

that point is dynamic

[soonerintn]

I get what you are saying but I can't support something that I believe is still wrong

that point is dynamic

So you would rather cut off your nose to spite your face. If ultimately your goal is to decrease abortions, then your actions should focus in that direction. Certainly you don't believe that introducing legislation that reduces abortion is wrong do you?

In tennessee, we have a very liberal state constitution concerning abortion. In 2014, it should get changed. The first law that will get submitted will be to restrict abortions after 24 weeks unless ****, incest or life of the woman. Are you saying you wouldn't vote for that bill because it isn't an all or none approach?

[SoonerBounce]

So you would rather cut off your nose to spite your face. If ultimately your goal is to decrease abortions, then your actions should focus in that direction. Certainly you don't believe that introducing legislation that reduces abortion is wrong do you?

In tennessee, we have a very liberal state constitution concerning abortion. In 2014, it should get changed. The first law that will get submitted will be to restrict abortions after 24 weeks unless ****, incest or life of the woman. Are you saying you wouldn't vote for that bill because it isn't an all or none approach?

I understand what you are saying and would support something that cut them down but to me it's still saying some abortions are ok and I think if you passed a law saying anything under 24 weeks is ok, it would be difficult to ever get that decreased. And I doubt it would put a dent in the number of abortions. I'm guessing more people that are over 24 weeks could still get them at any clinic...they would just fudge the due date numbers

[soonerintn]

I understand what you are saying and would support something that cut them down but to me it's still saying some abortions are ok and I think if you passed a law saying anything under 24 weeks is ok, it would be difficult to ever get that decreased. And I doubt it would put a dent in the number of abortions. I'm guessing more people that are over 24 weeks could still get them at any clinic...they would just fudge the due date numbers

So how do you determine that one life is more important than another? You believe that surgery for ectopic pregnancy is OK because the mother's life is at risk. There really isn't any difference between that embryo and a viable embryo other than where it implanted.

Right now, it would be constitutional to limit anything after 24 weeks(casey v planned parenthood). That is the first step. Unless you get more republicans at the federal level, you aren't going to see that change.

I'm not sure any laws would put a great dent in the number of abortions. If thrown to the states, there are enough that would allow abortions such that there would just be the planned parenthood mobile abortion van.

In order to stop the "fudging", you must put the onus on the abortion doctor. He or she must prove the gestational age of the fetus. When I do certain procedures, I must keep an ultrasound record or fluoroscopy record of the procedure. One could require such records be kept by the abortionist. It's hard to fudge a femur length on ultrasound, especially if they must go to electronic health records like everyone else.

[SoonerBounce]

So how do you determine that one life is more important than another? You believe that surgery for ectopic pregnancy is OK because the mother's life is at risk. There really isn't any difference between that embryo and a viable embryo other than where it implanted.

I don't value one over the other. If the pregnancy in an ectopic pregnancy wasn't aborted, both lives would be lost.i fail to see how this relates to my post

In order to stop the "fudging", you must put the onus on the abortion doctor. He or she must prove the gestational age of the fetus. When I do certain procedures, I must keep an ultrasound record or fluoroscopy record of the procedure. One could require such records be kept by the abortionist. It's hard to fudge a femur length on ultrasound, especially if they must go to electronic health records like everyone else.

I agree, I just think something like that will ever be passed

[soonerintn]

I don't value one over the other. If the pregnancy in an ectopic pregnancy wasn't aborted, both lives would be lost.i fail to see how this relates to my post





I agree, I just think something like that will ever be passed

It relates because of life of the mother. I'll give you a scenario. Woman is pregnant and finds out she has an aneurysm. The physiologic changes of pregnancy put her at grave risk of death. Is it not ok, in your opinion, for her to abort, then have her aneurysm fixed?

[SoonerBounce]

Is it not ok, in your opinion, for her to abort, then have her aneurysm fixed?

I think that would be one of the rare instances where it should be permitted.

[SpankyNek]

I think that would be one of the rare instances where it should be permitted.

Ok. So we have established a clear hierarchy of the value of life as it relates to mother v. Fetus.

[SoonerBounce]

Ok. So we have established a clear hierarchy of the value of life as it relates to mother v. Fetus.

I guess so.

I think certain things can create more value of a mother. Like kids and responsibilities

[VUGear]

So how do you determine that one life is more important than another? You believe that surgery for ectopic pregnancy is OK because the mother's life is at risk. There really isn't any difference between that embryo and a viable embryo other than where it implanted.

Technically, the decision to allow an abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is not valuing the life of one human over another, but rather an acknowledgement that it's better to save one life by aborting rather than saving none by doing nothing.

Are you saying you wouldn't vote for that bill because it isn't an all or none approach?

On this issue, personally I'm a gradualist. Given the choice between two options of proposed legislation, I will choose the one that could save 50,000 lives and has a chance of passing rather than the one that could save 500,000 lives and has zero chance of passing. I can support a law that has some restrictions on elective abortion with reasonable exceptions because I know that a law prohibiting all abortions has almost no public support. Because saving some lives is better than saving none at all.

[soonerintn]

Technically, the decision to allow an abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is not valuing the life of one human over another, but rather an acknowledgement that it's better to save one life by aborting rather than saving none by doing nothing.



On this issue, personally I'm a gradualist. Given the choice between two options of proposed legislation, I will choose the one that could save 50,000 lives and has a chance of passing rather than the one that could save 500,000 lives and has zero chance of passing. I can support a law that has some restrictions on elective abortion with reasonable exceptions because I know that a law prohibiting all abortions has almost no public support. Because saving some lives is better than saving none at all.

Point one: the ectopic example goes towards allowing abortion due to risk of the woman's life.

Point two: you follow my line of thinking. In business, it is called a feasibility analysis. Sometimes you can't get what you want, but you can get what is feasible which gets you closer to your goal. Bounce acknowledged that he didn't think some things would essentially be feasible because of fudging. What makes him think abolishing all abortions is feasible? When the ball isn't in your court, you take what is feasible, then fight for the next step. An all or nothing approach, especially on this issue, gets you nothing. Actually, it does more damage because it pushes otherwise fiscal conservative thinkers towards voting for democrats.