A Trial in Philadelphia

[BonosSaint]

Nice to have you back, Sean. It's important to have at least a few voices that can step back and say "OK, we can always have the ideology wars, but let's look and see what the common ground is so we can have a real discussion and maybe move a little further, maybe move into --say--real life.

And although I strongly support the right to choose, I also have some discomfort with it, because I do see it as the taking of potential life, if not life itself.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

Galeongirl, part of the problem in the US is many qualified doctors will not perform abortions out of fear of reprisal from protestors or worse. In the '90s we had a rash of murders and bombings which have scared medical professionals from providing that service. Also, there doctors who will not perform the procedure for religious/moral reasons.

Wow, that's mad.


Pretty ironic that the religious zealies claim that their norms and values are so important and that's what religion brought upon us humans... yet when it comes to these things they turn into beasts themselves.


Though I have to admit I cannot understand it if the doctor would not perform the procedure. It's their job. They swore an oath. You're a man of medicine, of science. Sure fine if you believe, but if your beliefs conflict with your job something's gotta give.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Or on the Right's.

If we're going to meet in the middle there at least to be a demonstration of good faith, though: "I'm going to put all my cards on the table and be straight with you. I'm not going to pretend that I'm promoting your agenda when in fact I'm promoting my own." Does that not make sense?

I don't think it's particularly disingenuous for me as an individual who is privately pro-life but trying to (as anitram so aptly put it) "be realistic" about the world in which we live. Particularly when I'm not even pro-life in every situation. To me, the TX legislation, while imperfect, seemed an opportunity for the Left to lead -- to try in some small way to reconcile the tension that exists on this issue. Instead, all we got was more divisiveness. It is what it is. I don't think it's particularly disingenuous to try to see things from both sides, and to try to stake out some ground in the middle, but (unfortunately) everything you described about only seeing things from one side applies just as much to those on the Left, both to here in FYM as well as nationwide. If we're not going to get to the middle on legislation like SB5, how, pray, will we? (We certainly won't get there by dismissively declaring the issue controversial only to a few, when the numbers simply disagree with Irvine.) Like I said -- no one ideology gets to fully define the debate, or the terms under which the middle ground is decided upon.

The level of conversation on this issue here only underlines that unless the Left gets what it wants on its own terms, rational fruitful dialogue is impossible. Which is sad for me, since I'm genuinely trying to figure out how to reconcile two sides to this and figure out how to have constructive dialogue. Maybe it's too much to hope for.

Oh, and incidentally, Sean -- I don't think one particularly needs to be a Christian to recognize that scissors puncturing babies' spinal cords, or doctors breaking babies' necks, is barbaric and inhumane. One just needs to be human. But, you know, that's just me.

Onward.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

The level of conversation on this issue here only underlines that unless the Left gets what it wants on its own terms, rational fruitful dialogue is impossible. Which is sad for me, since I'm genuinely trying to figure out how to reconcile two sides to this and figure out how to have constructive dialogue. Maybe it's too much to hope for.

Oh, and incidentally, Sean -- I don't think one particularly needs to be a Christian to recognize that scissors puncturing babies' spinal cords, or doctors breaking babies' necks, is barbaric and inhumane. One just needs to be human. But, you know, that's just me.

Onward.

FWIW, late-term abortions that literally do kill babies in a sadistic way are not that common. And plenty of pro-choicers are sickened that anyone would even think about doing that to a newborn. In fact, who wouldn't be? (rhetorical question)

From my point of view, the reason why pro-choicers are wary about dialogue with pro-lifers is because you have some who say the most ignorant or irrational comments about women's bodies or their situation. Just look at last year's GOP Congressional candidates. You had Akins saying a woman's body has a way of "shutting itself down" when raped, so it is impossible to get pregnant by rape which means women who terminate their pregnancies for that reason are lying. Pro-lifers even hold the belief - and I said this earlier - that women who have abortions are promiscuous and have the procedure numerous times. That sort of verbal assault is what prevents dialogue. I sure as hell wouldn't want to speak to someone like Akins because there is no hope of getting into his skull.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I don't think it's particularly disingenuous for me as an individual who is privately pro-life but trying to (as anitram so aptly put it) "be realistic" about the world in which we live. Particularly when I'm not even pro-life in every situation. To me, the TX legislation, while imperfect, seemed an opportunity for the Left to lead -- to try in some small way to reconcile the tension that exists on this issue. Instead, all we got was more divisiveness. It is what it is. I don't think it's particularly disingenuous to try to see things from both sides, and to try to stake out some ground in the middle, but (unfortunately) everything you described about only seeing things from one side applies just as much to those on the Left, both to here in FYM as well as nationwide. If we're not going to get to the middle on legislation like SB5, how, pray, will we? (We certainly won't get there by dismissively declaring the issue controversial only to a few, when the numbers simply disagree with Irvine.) Like I said -- no one ideology gets to fully define the debate, or the terms under which the middle ground is decided upon.

so, for you, the middle ground involves shutting down 38 clinics and leaving 6 open?

The level of conversation on this issue here only underlines that unless the Left gets what it wants on its own terms, rational fruitful dialogue is impossible. Which is sad for me, since I'm genuinely trying to figure out how to reconcile two sides to this and figure out how to have constructive dialogue. Maybe it's too much to hope for.

reducing access under the guise of "concern" for women's health isn't a particularly good way to start rational fruitful dialogue.

Oh, and incidentally, Sean -- I don't think one particularly needs to be a Christian to recognize that scissors puncturing babies' spinal cords, or doctors breaking babies' necks, is barbaric and inhumane. One just needs to be human. But, you know, that's just me.

Onward.

not only are late term abortions incredibly rare, but they are usually done when a woman is very young, very poor, or has significant health risks. no woman walks around at 7 months pregnant and passes a Planned Parenthood clinic and thinks, "oh right, i knew there was something i've been meaning to get to."

the Gosnell's of the world arise precisely when, as has been said, there's a vacuum of access like the one that will be created in the state of TX.

but perhaps that's the plan? reduce access, enable more Gosnells, make more emotionalist points?

[anitram]

nathan has consistently relied on this tone of superiority in the debate. To him, in order to have a "fruitful and rational" debate, the rest of us have to accept his view that this bill, the intentions behind it and the motivations of those legislators that introduced it and pushed it through have, in nathan's words, NOTHING TO DO WITH A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Sorry, we ain't buying this. And that doesn't make us more unreasonable than you.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so, for you, the middle ground involves shutting down 38 clinics and leaving 6 open?

Until those 38 are forced to actually have hallways wide enough for a gurney to pass through? Just, incidentally, one of those onerous standards that Wendy took a stand against. (Which, incidentally, is what contributed to the death of Karnamaya Mongar, since the Grand Jury Report in the Gosnell case found that it took over 20 minutes for emergency personnel to simply get her out of the building because of narrow, cluttered hallways and a padlocked emergency door.) Again -- this sort of standard doesn't seem particularly ridiculous to me, but then -- I consider myself somewhat reasonable, though anitram obviously feels differently.

not only are late term abortions incredibly rare

Which doesn't strike me as a particularly good reason not to do something about them. Especially when Karpen's apparently been busy performing them in Houston.

the Gosnell's of the world arise precisely when, as has been said, there's a vacuum of access like the one that will be created in the state of TX.

There were 36,700+ abortions performed in PA in 2011. This doesn't exactly strike me as a state suffering from a lack of access. Isn't it even remotely possible that the fact that Gosnell hadn't been investigated in over 20 years -- and that PA had allowed the same lax standards as in TX (until they were corrected by the signing of SB732 by a fairly bipartisan General Assembly) -- might have contributed to the problem?

[Irvine511]

at least we're being honest again -- you're not concerned about women's health, you're concerned about reducing the number of abortions via restricting access to health clinics.

that's fine.

also, since i know you're fond of anecdotes, i know someone who has had a late term abortion. she has 5 other children and as this particular child grew in the womb a brain never formed, she would have given birth to a baby with only a brain stem, in essence, a vegetable. thus, she had a late term abortion because this was discovered late in the pregnancy (it was 20+ years ago).

is this a monstrous thing to have had done?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Until those 38 are forced to actually have hallways wide enough for a gurney to pass through? Just, incidentally, one of those onerous standards that Wendy took a stand against.

I want you to start being honest with us and with yourself. Do you really believe that when one stands up against an entire bill they are standing against every single piece of it? I would argue that most bills probably have something redeeming inside it, but it doesn't mean that makes it worthy of passing.

I'm willing to be reasonable and discuss LOGICAL standards, are you willing to do the same? Because this bill is imposing unreasonable standards, and you know the reason why.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

(Which, incidentally, is what contributed to the death of Karnamaya Mongar, since the Grand Jury Report in the Gosnell case found that it took over 20 minutes for emergency personnel to simply get her out of the building because of narrow, cluttered hallways and a padlocked emergency door.)

Gosnell was an unlicensed butcher, let's please stop using him as an example.

[nbcrusader]

God help me for wading into an abortion debate, a legal concept (not trying to overturn Roe v. Wade here) that suspends rational analysis.

Let’s take the example of the proposed Texas law. The law does not require 38 clinics to be closed down for good; it simply requires that clinics in the State meet certain health & safety standards. We must assume these health & safety standards exist for the protection of patients. Why on earth would someone want women to obtain healthcare from a clinic that does not meet basis health & safety requirements?

We can argue evil intent back and forth (which, I believe both sides embrace as it furthers their fundraising agendas). That ignores the fact that we are accepting substandard medical care for a procedure that is and should be made available.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Why on earth would someone want women to obtain healthcare from a clinic that does not meet basis health & safety requirements?

According to whom?

The American Congress of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians and the Texas Hospital Association both came out against this bill and both contested the idea that the clinics are unsafe.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

at least we're being honest again -- you're not concerned about women's health, you're concerned about reducing the number of abortions via restricting access to health clinics.

See, this is again part of the problem. Your approach here is not only unhelpful, but it's also incorrect as far as where I'm coming from. Can we take a both/and approach to the issue, or not?

I continue to believe that safe and legal are not false opposites. Do you?

also, since i know you're fond of anecdotes, i know someone who has had a late term abortion. she has 5 other children and as this particular child grew in the womb a brain never formed, she would have given birth to a baby with only a brain stem, in essence, a vegetable. thus, she had a late term abortion because this was discovered late in the pregnancy (it was 20+ years ago).

is this a monstrous thing to have had done?

Some incredibly dear friends of ours agonized through a nine-month pregnancy in order to hold their baby girl for 10 hours.

Other friends delivered twins at 30 weeks destined to live for 45 minutes.

Some other friends had a baby girl at 30 weeks and were told by their doctor to abort her. That was two years ago. She is a healthy, thriving baby now.

I don't believe in pitting one story against another. Let's figure out how to sort this out together.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

The American Congress of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians and the Texas Hospital Association both came out against this bill and both contested the idea that the clinics are unsafe.

this is really the heart of it. unsafe since when? according to whom? were they unsafe before Gosnell? why the sudden need for mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

See, this is again part of the problem. Your approach here is not only unhelpful, but it's also incorrect as far as where I'm coming from. Can we take a both/and approach to the issue, or not?

I continue to believe that safe and legal are not false opposites. Do you?

can you show me the evidence of the grave risk to patients in these 38 clinics in Texas?

Some incredibly dear friends of ours agonized through a nine-month pregnancy in order to hold their baby girl for 10 hours.

Other friends delivered twins at 30 weeks destined to live for 45 minutes.

Some other friends had a baby girl at 30 weeks and were told by their doctor to abort her. That was two years ago. She is a healthy, thriving baby now.

I don't believe in pitting one story against another. Let's figure out how to sort this out together.

you didn't answer my question, and you've given, erm, questionable anecdotes in the past.

however, i'm delighted your friends were able to choose how and when they gave birth.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by BVS

I would argue that most bills probably have something redeeming inside it, but it doesn't mean that makes it worthy of passing.

That doesn't make it automatically unworthy either. Why not negotiate a compromise? Politicians do it all the time on a variety of issues; is this one any different?

I'm willing to be reasonable and discuss LOGICAL standards, are you willing to do the same? Because this bill is imposing unreasonable standards, and you know the reason why.

Do you find the standards for ambulatory centers to be illogical and unreasonable?

Gosnell was an unlicensed butcher, let's please stop using him as an example.

Then how was he allowed to operate for 20 years? Doesn't this only strengthen the argument for stricter regulations and higher standards?

[anitram]

And for nathan, from one of the bill's sponsors, Jodie Laubenberg, a ridiculous commentary on rape kits (she was the one who opposed a negotiated compromise, of which you are a great fan and which would have created exceptions for cases of rape):

"In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out," said state Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R), sponsor of the controversial SB 5, according to The Associated Press. "The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development."

Nevermind that this is completely factually incorrect and that rape kits do not "clean out" (nice euphemism) anything...but it goes to show you exactly what sorts of motivations these people have. No, it's not about a woman's right to choose at all.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Do you find the standards for ambulatory centers to be illogical and unreasonable?

For clinics or doctor's offices? Absolutely. And that's the whole point.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Then how was he allowed to operate for 20 years? Doesn't this only strengthen the argument for stricter regulations and higher standards?

This seems to be a state board issue and how they perform their oversight, not an issue of higher standards for certain clinics. Padlocking an emergency exit is illegal for ANY business.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by anitram

According to whom?

The American Congress of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians and the Texas Hospital Association both came out against this bill and both contested the idea that the clinics are unsafe.

Are Texas health & safety standards too high for all non-abortion medical clinics? Perhaps the cost of medical care wouldn't be so high if we didn't have higher than necessary standards.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

We must assume these health & safety standards exist for the protection of patients.

Why must we assume this?

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Why on earth would someone want women to obtain healthcare from a clinic that does not meet basis health & safety requirements?

Why should the health and safety requirements be any different than an OB's office, Dermatologist's office, or any other doctor's office where riskier procedures are being performed?

[anitram]

Here is also state rep Debbie Riddle, commenting on the vote on SB5:

"This is a tough fight – the Gallery is full of orange shirts – very few blue – orange are the ones I call Pro-death. I am Pro-life – so they must be Pro-death. A human is a human prior to birth just as it is human after it is born. We have killed 50 million babies after Roe v Wade. Hitler killed 6 million people."

But no, this isn't about a woman's right to choose at all. We're just being unreasonable and unhelpful by suggesting that is the underlying concern at hand.