I'll admit that my posts are more about abortion, euthanasia and moral equivalence than this particular bill. As such, if you want me to stop posting here, I shall. I tend to get extremely philosophical, and when you combine that with ADD (and currently being sick), getting off-topic is easy. However, I think abortion is close enough to the topic in order to keep posting, unless you say otherwise.
The way I personally see matters, I tend to be fully aware of causality. If I save someone's life, it means that if not for me, that person would die. By contrast, if I kill someone, I believe that that person would have continued to life were it not for my actions. Otherwise, killing them would be meaningless.
To that end, in my perspective, if you're killing a fetus, unless you're doing so because you realize that the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that a baby will be born if not for your actions. If the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that the baby's life isn't certain and are saving the mother. Trying to claim that aborting the fetus when it may have been a miscarriage anyway does not work in my book, for the same reason that a person may have continued to live and you killed them anyway, or that a bomb may or may not have been triggered and the bomb squad detonates it anyway to make certain of safety.
Now, I understand the reasoning for terminating a fetus with birth defects. However, I put that in the equivalence with euthanasia. If someone is going to be born with a terrible disease that in your perspective makes it too terrible for that person to live, then you should accept the equal premise that someone with said disease has the right to commit suicide.
A lot of people don't accept this correlation, and I was hoping that someone could explain why.
The problem is this.. You can set definite limits and allow the use of abortion, as well as hopefully more suitable reproductive countermeasures and birth control, or you can let it continue in back alleys and behind closed doors. Where people died.
I am quite familiar with this premise, but when extending it to equivalent circumstances, I'm not sure it really holds up.
Have you ever heard of female circumcision? I saw a thing a year or two ago on ABC about how a number of doctors face the dilemma either to perform it or to have their patients go to the Middle East to get it done by in abhorrent conditions and with less qualifications.
Many a dirty cop has said that if they don't accept the bribe, the crook will just find someone else willing to pull some strings.
A hit man can claim that if he doesn't kill people, they'll just hire someone else.
Perhaps it's a lighter shade of gray if performing the act yourself has less abhorrent side effects. However, doing so changes the act from something terrible which is only best kept for tremendous circumstances, into an act which is commonplace because "everybody does it."
You don't need me to tell you how much trouble we're in solely from things that "everybody" does.
How about this. I knew a couple, both of them were Tay Sachs recessive. That meant that they had a 1 in 4 chance of having their child die painfully before he/she attained their teenage years. Period. End of Story. As a result, along with fertility issues with the father meant that the turned to fertility treatments for a 'safe child' (which they finally got after years of work, suffering).
One of the things he said to me about his own outlook had to do with them early in their marriage. His wife was on the pill but they finally got pregnant. A test revealed that the child was Tay Sachs dominant. For several minutes my freind, and boss, sat there and I could only imagine what he and his wife went through. They knew he was not very fertile even then. That he managed to get her pregnant despite the pill was a miracle. A black one but a miracle still. Do they have the child or not was the hardest thing in the world.
I met his wife, she was a lovely lady. I couldnt imagine how hard it was for her and him to make that decision, even knowing that the child would never live to be an adult, given that his fertility issues were a constant thing.
Then I try to imagine what it would be like to have this loving couple be mandated to have their child paraded before them in this invasive and hateful manner. Knowing that it could the only child they could have ever conceived.
That is mean, hurtful, cruel and vindictive.
I occasionally go to my friend's facebook page to see the picture of their healthy daughter (who was the lucky 1 in 4 that doesnt' have the Tay Sach trait) and know that they are good people and parents.
A law like this.. doesn't make you a better person by rubbing someone's nose in their choices (right or wrong), it's invasive. It's hurtful. It's petty. It is low and vile and totally without compassion for another's issues or life.
That's discounting how you're grossly invading the privacy between doctor and patient.
Consider this. You open the door in one sitaution, where will the next invasion begin?
I don't really like when the government steps in and something HAS to be done. I'm not a fan of when Republicans do something like this, nor when Democrats force Christian hospitals to pay for such procedures. Both are extreme views. However, I realize that when the government redistributes wealth, it's got to put it somewhere.
I'm not really convinced that government programs should be able to withhold funds unless they like what you're doing, but I don't know how you would manage that without things going completely haywire. However, when the government plays favorites (like how they go after the Christian hospitals but Planned Parenthood still gets public funding), the fact that the government is choosing sides becomes quite obvious.
I'm getting off topic though.
You've really never heard of partial birth abortion?
Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements. Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening, and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.
This was a big argument during the 90s; I don't honestly know if it's currently legal in the United States.
Andy, I do agree with you to a point. Once a fetus does have a brain and organ systems and what not, I think killing it then is pretty horrific. In my perfect world there would be a compromise. If I could write legislation on this I would outlaw abortions after something like 14 weeks, unless of course the mother's well being is threatened, among other exceptions. Even then, if the baby could be saved I would want the doctors to try. Women usually find out before then, and if they wanted an abortion they could do it in the early stages.
To me, if it's going to have a brain and organ systems, then actions taken to stop it from having them are pretty much the same in some aspect. It's the same response that if someone is stopping a pregnancy because the baby will have X as a defect, then you realize that it's a causal thing, and unless you also accept euthanasia, you're disproving yourself.
One could argue that euthanasia requires a willing participant as well. It's very difficult to prove if a person would want to be born.
But yeah, it could just be me.