- Dec 5, 2010
- 95,310
- 32,334
- 2,290
Sorry, I forgot to answer your hypothetical. It was bolded so I will, although my answer should be self-evident. The doctor should follow the law. Meaning specifically, abort, unless the state imposes a restriction that is more than the viability standard put down in Roe v Wade.
What I wish that the woman would do. Is not abort at this late stage. Both are different. ( I also find the reason for wanting the abortion silly and callous in the extreme)
I know that they are rampant. But most often in more thoughtful media outlets such as NPR. Here is what NPR said, that is exactly what I intended to convey:
"What it speaks to is the fact that the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. "People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don't fall along one side or the other. ... The debate is about the extremes, and that's not where the public is."
Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey found that three-quarters of Americans want the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade. But there is also complexity — and contradiction — in respondents' views.www.npr.org
But if you have examples of CNN, the Licensed networks, or MSNBC talking about that, I would like to see those articles. I don't watch them much anymore. Just once in a while, I tune in to see how long it takes for them to show themselves to be political hacks. It's usually one to five minutes, depending on whether there was a commercial break in progress when I turned to them.
Well, you got me there. I was wrong to say that self-defense is "absolute," since nothing is absolute, including that nothing is absolute.
If we are going to say that a .000088. probability of dying justifies killing a human, then we will be justifying killing humans in many, many situations that previously it would not be allowed. In Texas, we have a right to kill someone in self-defense if we believe that it is reasonably necessary. So, if a person is in our home, doing violence, even just the violence of breaking in, in the first place, we can defend ourselves. But that .000088 probability standard you propose would seem to justify shooting to kill a porch pirate on the grounds that he might kick in the door and kill us.
So, you would not feel the need to let them know that you would have preferred that they had been killed in the womb, since that was the express wish of their birthing person? Maybe out of politeness, you would not bring it up, but if they asked you, would you be frank with them? If so, how would you put it?
"I have to be honest. If I had my way, and could turn back time, I would make sure that your birthing person was able to abort you."
If that is what you would say, I have one word of advice:
View attachment 644169
For example, if an unborn human would be able to survive outside the womb with no medical intervention, you would agree that he or she was viable, I take it. What if a human was developed enough that if you induced labor, it could survive, but only with out of the ordinary medical interventions, such as emergency oxygen, incubation, would that meet your definition of "viability?"
Well, no. You are forgetting (as many do) Doe v. Bolton (1973):
Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Roe v. Wade was modified by another case decided the same day: Doe v. Bolton. In Doe v. Bolton the Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion could not be limited by the state if abortion was sought for reasons of maternal health. The Court defined health as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." This health exception expanded the right to abortion for any reason through all three trimesters of pregnancy.
Opinion of the Court[edit]
The same 7–2 majority that struck down a Texas abortion law in Roe v. Wade invalidated most of the remaining restrictions of the Georgia abortion law, including the medical approval and residency requirements. The Court reiterated the protected "right to privacy," which applied to matters involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.[3] Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which he explained "the sensitive and emotional nature" of the issue and "the deep and seemingly absolute convictions" on both sides.[4] Justice Blackmun went on to conclude that as a constitutional matter, the right to privacy was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[3][4]
Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. states. Roe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability.[3]
Definition of health[edit]
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
If any doctor can provide an abortion by claiming that the abortion is necessary for the emotional or psychological health of the woman, then abortion is effectively unlimited. Which is why so many restrictions by states have been struck down.
Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's a good time to say that most doctors have no interest in performing abortions. For those that do, the procedures are often the bulk of their practice. There is no requirement that a doctor with no financial interest be the one to decide whether the abortion is "necessary," so of course a professional abortion provider will rarely, if ever, turn down a woman's request for abortion.
I will try to be the same. Please feel free to "have me going," and then say you were pulling my leg. I won't be a snit about it.