[Politics] Abortion Failure Megathread

[tzor]

So. Serious question time.

Suppose that you as a pro-lifer totally got your way on this issue. No compromise, you get everything exactly the way you wanted it as far as the law is concerned.

I'll give you a serious answer here. Since I am from New York this is sort of like asking a quarterback with his back towards the wrong goal line what he would do when he gets to within 2 yards of the goal. For him, even getting to field goal range is something he is going to have to work hard for.

No die-hard pro-lifer will allow exceptions.

I consider myself somehwat die-hard and I can certainly see exceptions. I'll admit it is an abuse of the principle of double-effect, but the life of the mother should have a priority. There are a number of cases where these type of decisions have to be made; the real challenge is to advance medicine to where these choices eventually need not be made.

...

Back to the question at hand. First and foremost you just can't make all abortion illegal. That produces the same problem we had with prohibition; you drive everything underground. The ideal situation would be the a two pronged approach; remove the "constitutional sacredness" of abortions - requiring them to follow the same requirements that any other surgical medical procedure - with the same chances for serious complications - has to go through. Sceond; treat the root casue of the problem - scared, mostly young, women who are pregnant and unaware of options. Expand existing options when necessary and give more support to the keeping of the ching to term.

(In several states, for example, there are laws originally designed to prevent dumpster babies - abandoning infants in dumpsters - where a woman could annomyously give a new born child to a designated "safe haven" and not have to worry about the legal or financial rammifications.)

I would even suggest removing the "screening" portion from the abortion clinic itself; have a clinic provide all information to the woman and then if necessary refer to an unaffiliated clinic for the procedure. I know many in the pro-life community are convinced that most people, if properly informed are pro-life and if they knew the options and what they really had inside them there would be far less abortions in the United States than there are today.

What should be the punishment for aborting a fetus? Should the punishment be increased the further along said fetus is in the pregnancy? What exceptions will you allow if any?

I would not suggest any "punishement" until the system is changed so that all women are fully aware of all implications and options, and even then, you have to eliminate all effects of cohersion. The onus is on the doctors who should be treated to the same punishments that any other doctor would have performing banned medical procedures.

[tzor]

Live Action hits Indiana Planned Parenthood claims on Medicaid

Indiana recently stripped the nation’s largest abortion chain store from receiving Medicaid funding, a decision that has the Obama administration fuming. The White House has threatened to hold $4.2 billion in federal Medicaid funds from Indiana unless it restores Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider, claiming — as does Planned Parenthood’s national leadership — that the decision leaves women without reliable gynecological care. Is that true? Live Action Films made phone calls to PP clinics across the state, and as it turns out, even Planned Parenthood admits that women can find that care easily in their communities:

Planned Parenthood staffers at all 16 locations admitted that Medicaid women would still have access to medical care after the defunding. Staffers suggested local health clinics or state-assigned primary care physicians for Medicaid patients: “Your primary care doctor should be able to do [a Well Woman exam,] I mean, that’s what they’re there for,” said a Planned Parenthood in Michigan City, while the Merrillville Planned Parenthood said of a local community health center, “They have the same services we have.”

“According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, their 28 clinics serve less than 1% of Indiana Medicaid patients, yet they do more than 50% of Indiana abortions,” notes Rose. There are over 800 other Medicaid providers available to these women in the counties with Planned Parenthood clinics alone.”

Even Indiana doctors agree that defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana would have little to no effect on the care and services provided to Medicaid patients.

“If Planned Parenthood only sees 1% of Medicaid patients in the state, and that’s their statistic, it doesn’t seem like they are making a big imprint in the first place,” said Dr. Geoff Cly, at the Northeast Ob/GYN Women’s Health Group in Fort Wayne, IN. “I know in our group, we currently have capacity to see more patients and I’m sure many other groups could easily take care of the 1% that’s left if Planned Parenthood no longer took care of those patients.”

[Ancient History]

remove the "constitutional sacredness" of abortions - requiring them to follow the same requirements that any other surgical medical procedure - with the same chances for serious complications - has to go through.

Ironically, the only reason abortion has any sort of special consideration is because of attempts to remove or restrict its practice. Such as, y'know, deliberate efforts to remove federal funding for abortions.

Sceond; treat the root casue of the problem - scared, mostly young, women who are pregnant and unaware of options. Expand existing options when necessary and give more support to the keeping of the ching to term.

I find this line of argument disingenuous; you intimate that the principle group that has abortions (and their main reason to have them), are frightened, ignorant girls who just don't know any better. The reality of the situation is, as far as I am aware, very different. Abortions happen across the economic and educational stratum of society, and not because the women involved are unaware of the options available to them or the consequences of the surgery - except, y'know, for those places where sexual education is restricted entirely to abstinence.

(In several states, for example, there are laws originally designed to prevent dumpster babies - abandoning infants in dumpsters - where a woman could annomyously give a new born child to a designated "safe haven" and not have to worry about the legal or financial rammifications.)

I notice a lot of your arguments assume from the get-go that the individuals involved are willing and able to carry a child to term - and many are not. There's a certain level of presumption there, like the idea that simply making "all the options" available will dissuade people from having abortions. But this is a world where some people just need abortions: they've had an affair, they can't afford to be pregnant for their career...not great reasons, honestly, but realistic ones that people can fairly say are more important to them than the potential of spending nine months with their life out of whack for a shot at dropping a kid off at a safe haven. It's a lot of fucking work to go through to do "the right thing," and it isn't realistic.

[violence in the media]

Tzor, you mention advancing medicine to the point where abortions aren't necessary, so what is that supposed to mean? Magic Tea Party pretend aside, not all abortions are "medical necessities" where the mother's life is in danger. Nor should that be the only allowable case.

What about the woman that's unwilling to tolerate the disruption of pregnancy at all? I'm not going to tell someone they can't get an abortion because they're unwilling to take a semester off of graduate/law/medical school.

What about non-life threateningly disabled fetuses? I'm unwilling to force people to have Down's babies.

What about in situations involving threat of retaliation towards, or ostracism of, the mother for the fact of being pregnant? I mean, you'd really have to do a lot of work to counteract the unreasonable outrage some people express towards the idea of other people fucking, let alone if one of them gets pregnant in the process.

It may make you feel icky inside, but you need to allow people to make their own decisions regarding whether or not to use abortion to cover their own asses, make their lives easier, or protect their own psyches.

If you're that concerned about the children, go feed and fund war orphans. They're here and suffering right now.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Did you know that liberals abort ten million fetuses a day? And some of the fetuses are shoved back in the woman so they can be aborted again?

[tzor]

Tzor, you mention advancing medicine to the point where abortions aren't necessary, so what is that supposed to mean? Magic Tea Party pretend aside, not all abortions are "medical necessities" where the mother's life is in danger. Nor should that be the only allowable case.

No, but that is the commonly argued first case "the life of the mother." The idea is to advance medicine where there is always some choice; instead of either saving A or B, why not save both?

What about the woman that's unwilling to tolerate the disruption of pregnancy at all? I'm not going to tell someone they can't get an abortion because they're unwilling to take a semester off of graduate/law/medical school.

Well, first of all, people do need to think of consequences ahead of time, not after the fact. But I was under the impression that we were trying to remove these barriers from society. Let's change it to a problem that can't be easily solved by a procedure. While skiing between semesters you have a major accident and are forced to wear a full body cast for 9 months, effectively keeping you from at leat one semester. Does that mean your career is over? Because if it does, then the system sucks and needs to be replaced.

What about non-life threateningly disabled fetuses? I'm unwilling to force people to have Down's babies.

OK then, where do you draw the line? Who lives and who dies? Who is worthy and who is not?

Let's consider this for a moment

Most individuals with Down syndrome have intellectual disability in the mild (IQ 50–70) to moderate (IQ 35–50) range,

Considering how much we spend on animals that are far less intelligent, it seems egotistical to draw the line here, if only because Down's babies remind us of how precious full intelligence while we can ignore that if it doesn't look just like us.

Generally, unless life really sucks (constant pain and that sort of thing) most beings would prefer to live.

What about in situations involving threat of retaliation towards, or ostracism of, the mother for the fact of being pregnant? I mean, you'd really have to do a lot of work to counteract the unreasonable outrage some people express towards the idea of other people fucking, let alone if one of them gets pregnant in the process.

But why limit it to just "being pregnant?" Fear of any kind; any threat of retaliation or ostracism is wrong, period end. One only has to look over at the Islamic world (comming to a local town near you) to see what shit excuses can be used for killing a member of the family for a preceived slight to their "family honor." That needs to be purged ... with fire ... from our society at large.

The solution to the scarlet letter is not to hide the fact through abortion, but to remove the scarlett letter once and for all from society.

[Neeeek]

Sceond; treat the root casue of the problem - scared, mostly young, women who are pregnant and unaware of options. Expand existing options when necessary and give more support to the keeping of the child to term.

Actually, the root problem might be that you believe this is the root problem. You think the ones who get abortions are scared and unaware of their options? Um. That's laughable at best.

Maybe you've never met someone whose had one (or more likely, they'd never trust you enough to mention it), but I know several, and a lot more who have expressed a explicit intention to get one if they got pregnant on accident. These women know exactly what they are doing, and exactly what they are going into.

The only ones who were scared were the ones whose pregnancy was literally killing them.

I'll give you a serious answer here. Since I am from New York this is sort of like asking a quarterback with his back towards the wrong goal line what he would do when he gets to within 2 yards of the goal. For him, even getting to field goal range is something he is going to have to work hard for.

So what's the plan then? I guarantee that a QB on his own 1 knows what he'd want to do 98 yards down the field. If you don't have a specific end-goal, then you are just being an asshole.

requiring them to follow the same requirements that any other surgical medical procedure - with the same chances for serious complications

You are aware that carrying a child to term is considerably more dangerous than getting an abortion, right?

[tzor]

requiring them to follow the same requirements that any other surgical medical procedure - with the same chances for serious complications

You are aware that carrying a child to term is considerably more dangerous than getting an abortion, right?

I'll leave you to attempt to prove that (you will find out that since abortion is constitutionally sacred there is no information available to argue either way). But the point remains, patient information laws, safety reporting laws, heck even malpractice laws don't apply to the constitutionallyh sacred procedure known as abortion. Orthodontists, which one can argue is considerably less dangerous than either live birth or abortions, have to go through far more hoops in order to remain in business than abortionists.

[K]

requiring them to follow the same requirements that any other surgical medical procedure - with the same chances for serious complications

You are aware that carrying a child to term is considerably more dangerous than getting an abortion, right?

I'll leave you to attempt to prove that (you will find out that since abortion is constitutionally sacred there is no information available to argue either way). But the point remains, patient information laws, safety reporting laws, heck even malpractice laws don't apply to the constitutionallyh sacred procedure known as abortion. Orthodontists, which one can argue is considerably less dangerous than either live birth or abortions, have to go through far more hoops in order to remain in business than abortionists.

Orthodontists use general anesthesia which has a mortality rate of 1.4%. The mortality rate for legal abortions is 0.001%. I trust this is not a challenging mathematical comparison.

On a related note, the mortality rate for a day of skiing is .001%, meaning that legal abortions are about as deadly as going skiing for a day. Does that mean that we need to send skiers to medical school?

The MMR (maternal mortality rate) in the US. is .011%, making pregnancy eleven times as dangerous as having an abortion.

Seriously man, this took me two minutes to look up. They have this crap on wikipedia.

[tzor]

There are more medical complications than death, you know. And yes skiiing is damn dangerous, relatively speaking. Hell, riding a bicycle (in an urban area) is insanity.

I'll still quibble with the mortality rates for abortions since a lot of them occur well after the fact because of missed complications from the procedure. Also with the point that a lot of abortions are very early term abortions and these are generally very safe, especially compared to late term abortions and actually giving birth. There's a little apple / a whole collection of fruit comparison going on in your argument, K.

[K]

There are more medical complications than death, you know. And yes skiiing is damn dangerous, relatively speaking. Hell, riding a bicycle (in an urban area) is insanity.

I'll still quibble with the mortality rates for abortions since a lot of them occur well after the fact because of missed complications from the procedure. Also with the point that a lot of abortions are very early term abortions and these are generally very safe, especially compared to late term abortions and actually giving birth. There's a little apple / a whole collection of fruit comparison going on in your argument, K.

Seriously? After being crushed by the publicly and easily available data which you claimed did not exist, your response is "well, I think it's happening anyway even though every available piece of information collected by neutral observers devoted to these issues says otherwise?"

Pathetic. Really pathetic.

For the record, late-term abortions (after 20 weeks) that are only allowed to save the life of the mother only have a mortality rate of 0.2%, making them more dangerous than having the kid, but still drastically less dangerous than the orthodontist or getting a boob job. It's like skiing for several weeks out of the year.

Of course, those abortions are only allowed because the life of the mother was in danger, so those numbers are deceptive. There aren't numbers on "people we forced to have children even though it was endangering their lives." Thank goodness for that.

On an unrelated note, I would support you standing around plastic surgeon's offices and convincing women to not get boob jobs or to get counseling so that they can make an informed choice about their boob job.

[PoliteNewb]

Well, first of all, people do need to think of consequences ahead of time, not after the fact. But I was under the impression that we were trying to remove these barriers from society. Let's change it to a problem that can't be easily solved by a procedure. While skiing between semesters you have a major accident and are forced to wear a full body cast for 9 months, effectively keeping you from at leat one semester. Does that mean your career is over? Because if it does, then the system sucks and needs to be replaced.

Uh, what?
If you have a major accident and are forced into a full-body cast for 9 months, that sucks balls, and yes, it will probably have a major impact on your career (and your life). I certainly wouldn't wish that situation on anyone, if it could be avoided.

Why in the fuck would we want to change it to a problem that can't be easily solved with a procedure? The fact that it can be easily solved with a procedure is a good thing. I honestly don't understand what your point is.

And as far as thinking of consequences ahead of time...you realize that there is in fact the term "unforeseen consequences"? Meaning, consequences that happen even if you make plans and think ahead? If your whole point is that people should use birth control instead of having abortions, hey, I'm with you. But that means that the pro-life movement should be the biggest promoters of birth control out there. Because telling people, "if you don't like it, don't fuck" is simply not an option. This has kinda been historically proven. Further, it doesn't distribute responsibility equally, putting it solely on women.

What about non-life threateningly disabled fetuses? I'm unwilling to force people to have Down's babies.

OK then, where do you draw the line? Who lives and who dies? Who is worthy and who is not?

The line is drawn by the person who has to bear another living thing inside their body for 9 months, and then (if it's born) rear it for another 18-100 years. That is the "choice" that pro-choice movement talks about. There is no objective line in the sand, this group lives and this group dies. That's not how it works. That choice falls solely on the one who has to deal with it...for not just 9 months, but the rest of their life.

You are trying to put objective values on human lives, and that is incredibly dangerous. And stupid...because not all human lives are equally valuable, and that value is subjective. If some coked-up junkie with a criminal record a mile long and a switchblade is threatening my son, the value of his life (in my eyes) drops to very near zero.

[Maj]

While skiing between semesters you have a major accident and are forced to wear a full body cast for 9 months, effectively keeping you from at leat one semester. Does that mean your career is over? Because if it does, then the system sucks and needs to be replaced.

Actually, this is a really good point, and I completely agree.

Why in the fuck would we want to change it to a problem that can't be easily solved with a procedure? The fact that it can be easily solved with a procedure is a good thing. I honestly don't understand what your point is.

Because it's been put in the context of a conversation on abortion, you're not considering the ramifications for women who actually do want to have kids. Or new fathers...

Minimizing the impact of a nine month hiatus on someone's life is a damned good thing. Are you really going to object if a consequence of that is that more women opt to have kids because their life isn't considered by society to be "over" anymore?

That choice falls solely on the one who has to deal with it...for not just 9 months, but the rest of their life.

While I don't agree with tzor on abortion, he has advocated for safe havens, which means the "rest of their life" part is not in the equation.

The solution to the scarlet letter is not to hide the fact through abortion, but to remove the scarlett letter once and for all from society.

While I agree with this in principle, how do you suggest its execution?

[Psychic Robot]

imo we should surgically remove a woman's uterus at birth so we don't have to talk about this anymore. we'll just put it back in when she wants babies

[Ganbare Gincun]

imo we should surgically remove a woman's uterus at birth so we don't have to talk about this anymore. we'll just put it back in when she wants babies

Yes, but what kind of Essence loss are we talking about here?

[Ancient History]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/ ... pe=article

[Lago PARANOIA]

Let me try asking this another way.

So what should be the penalty for getting an illegal abortion? Moreover, what constitutes an illegal abortion? Who will determine if an abortion was legal or not? If you were going to punish the doctors for it but let the women get off scot-free, what about people who induce abortions outside of a medical facility? Are the penalties for inducing an abortion a month after conception the same as inducing once in the third trimester?

[PhoneLobster]

Tzor still hasn't actually answered how he will punish women (or whoever) if he gets his way. He just did a song and dance about some ideal world where pro-lifer pregnancy misinformation centers (which already exist and are a HIDEOUS practice) are compulsory for basically, well, all pregnant women really. He failed on basic premise to answer the actual question, which is, assuming he DOES get to inflict compulsory pro-lifer abuse on pregnant women what does he then do to punish all the women who get abortions ANYWAY?.

But many more questions arise regardless of his avoidance of the most basic one... like...

How will he determine the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage?

Will there be official miscarriage investigations by law enforcement officials?

How will you monitor women to ensure they do not achieve illegal abortions while avoiding official miscarriage investigation by never having their pregnancy officially registered?

How will you enforce doctors to officially register all pregnancies for official monitoring when they know the consequences?

How will the significant motivation to avoid government monitored doctors and instead go and see uneducated backyard rusty coat hanger jockeys effect women with REAL health problems, you know, all the ones they can't see doctors for anymore ASIDE from just the unwanted pregnancies and complications of rusty coat hangers?

etc...

The practical complications of ANY sort of punitive measures surrounding abortions rapidly multiply in all kinds of exciting and new ways. There is just NO way to do it without hurting people, mostly women, at every turn.

[Parthenon]

As well as: How does he reconcile the idea of an overriding government control and bureaucracy over all doctors, public and private, with wanting small government?

[sabs]

Does this mean banning IUD's and the morning after pill?

Banning Abortions leads to women dying from rusty coathanger syndrome. Hell, they are legal NOW and some women still go to quacks, because they don't want to face the pro-lifers, or can't be seen going to an abortion clinic.

[PhoneLobster]

Edit edit... I'm making this giant edit into it's own post.

Edit: Tzor won't answer anyway, so screw it, lets throw together a convincing kick-ass strawman.

In Tzor's world Planned Parenthood is abolished, along with all other non-religious fertility related services that ever come within 500 meters of a suspected abortion doctor (and possibly extend this to all organizations that vaguely consider advising the use of condoms).

Abortions are now outlawed. There is... some sort of punishment for getting one. Also certainly some sort of punishment for performing one. Considering the actions of the prolife movement so far it is clear the punishment for performing an abortion is a bullet to the head and the punishment for receiving one is to have your medical clinic fire bombed.

In the (mistaken) belief that enough lies about fake abortion complications and general guilt tripping emotional abuse will cure foolish women who don't know any better because of their vaginas of their mistaken desire not to be pregnant all women desiring abortions will be FORCED to go to mandatory and extensive anti-abortion clinics for religious counseling until they are cured of their mistaken desire to not be pregnant.

Because there is no knowing the mind of a foolish woman ALL pregnant women will be considered as potentially wanting an abortion, so ALL of them will be forced to attend anti-abortion counseling clinics until given the all clear by a religious councilor.

Because women might lie about being pregnant ALL young girls are subjected to anti-abortion counseling and related emotional abuse in schools, at the hands of religious councilors, the men in whose hands Tzor most trusts America's youth.

Women who cannot be cured of their desire to have an abortion, or who believe they cannot raise a child, or who are believed by anti-abortion councilors to secretly harbor those beliefs, or who simply seem like, or who is a bit young, or unmarried, or unchristian or something, will be forced to carry their children to full term (down syndrome included) and then have the baby forcibly taken from them to be raised by a religious couple or a religious state sponsored institution (it's not like that wasn't the standard in the past).

Some women will get illegal abortions and then try to pass it off as a miscarriage. Since abortion is illegal from conception this is especially challenging to disprove. So very thorough witch hunts official government/religious inquiries will need to be made into every reported miscarriage.

In order to ensure that these inquiries can even happen women will need to be monitored and have any pregnancies registered with a central state religion data-center. Members of every church community are encouraged to report suspected unregistered pregnancies (no matter how early, it's life from conception after all) to central church state authorities.

All doctors are of course forced by law to report all pregnancies to the church state and monitor pregnancies on behalf of the central unified pregnancy monitoring and enforcement agency. This is not a problem since any doctors not believed to be loyal to the church state ahead of their female patients have long been driven into the underground or killed.

Further to ensure that their doctors CAN detect and monitor pregnancies women are force to regularly (very regularly) undergo mandatory pregnancy tests, or to hand in fresh bloody tampons on a... periodic basis... as testable proof of their non-pregnancy.

To ensure no young girl misses her first... monitoring periods... all immediately prepubescent girls will be forced to be closely monitored by their pastor or immediate church state religious official. They will have to live in his house or church state orphanage institution for the months or years required to achieve their official registration for regular monitoring.

As long since established by pro-lifers there will be no exception for rape. It is not the baby's fault that their mother was raped, so no abortion for her. Anyway she was probably asking for it. The church state MIGHT be prepared to consider otherwise if the rape victim has an appropriate religious record of church attendance and was also a virgin, and was particularly violently gang raped and sodomized at the same time, but there will not be any actual official exemption in the legislation outlawing abortions that will account for such circumstances. (yes, this one was actual statement by a pro-life movement legislator)

Since the main cause of abortions is sex outside of marriage it will also be outlawed. As will recreational sex in general, the only sex allowed is sex, in marriage for the purpose of procreation. Since contraception is fallible and only encourages dangerous recreational sex that might then result in unintended pregnancies it is also outlawed. Women who fall pregnant as a result of premarital, extra marital or recreational sex definitely are forced to full term and have their babies taken from them by the church state.

Have I missed anything? I'm pretty sure there are still some bases that need covering...

[Koumei]

Considering the actions of the prolife movement so far it is clear the punishment for performing an abortion is a bullet to the head and the punishment for receiving one is to have your medical clinic fire bombed.

And this above all else is why it's incorrect to call them Pro-Life. If they were that Pro-Life they wouldn't commit and advocate so many murders.

Nor, for that matter, would they support so many wars and invasions, nor the death penalty. But given such things give them a hard-on and it's no coincidence they vote for the same things...

Maybe pro-torture is a better name?

[PhoneLobster]

I'm fine with the pro-life label. The irony is awesome.

And it's one case where their actions and rhetoric are so bad they could be called the fluffy love bunny motherhood movement and they would STILL be reviled by most of the civilized world as murderous religious extremist assholes.

You know. Like they currently are.

Yes. These people have actually managed to make the label "pro-life" into a term associated world wide with religious fanatic murderers. That is an achievement the movement should really go back home for a minute to contemplate in between assassinations, fire bombings and mis-information campaigns.

[Lago PARANOIA]

To be absolutely fair, I do know pro-lifers who are some combination of vegan, anti-death penalty, anti-torture, pro-universal health care, anti-war, etc..

[PhoneLobster]

But that isn't what you or most of the civilized world identify the pro life movement with. Is it?

The "pro-choice" movement with their significantly less deceptively snappy title does not have this murder related image problem.

A pro-lifer who can adequately explain this enigmatic discrepancy is easily identifiable by the (self) exploded cranium.