Ohio State Budget Abortion Restrictions

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

The problem with your argument, MC, is that on one side is Live and Let Live (if you don't want to have an abortion, don't), and one that is my side is right and needs to make decisions on behalf of everyone, even if half the world disagrees because what they want to allow is murder. Regardless of if it's religious, political, social or whatever, one is telling the other how to behave and that is offensive to the part who thinks personal responsibility is more important. I don't see middle ground here. Well, I DO see middle ground, but it's not middle ground the other side will accept as compromise.

There may not be middle ground, or the middle ground might be somewhere no one expects it to be.

But that's really not the point of my argument. The point of my argument is that regardless of whether middle ground is found, nothing good or productive comes from people on either side (of any issue) misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, caricaturing, trivializing or dismissing as not genuine the opinions and beliefs of those with whom they disagree. That just widens the divide and is a guarantee that middle ground can't be found. It's a sure recipe for polarization. If people on opposite sides make a genuine and respectful effort to understand where those with whom they disagree are coming from, then if they continue to disagree, at least it's an honest, and hopefully, respectful disagreement.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There may not be middle ground, or the middle ground might be somewhere no one expects it to be.

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

The 20 week ban is for show. The number of abortions occurring after 20 weeks is trivial and is cover for the more aggregious actions like requiring all abortion clinics to be outpatient surgical centers thus shutting down all centers in a state. The 20 week number is inflammatory and diverts attention from everything else that is going on. The vast majority of 20 week+ abortions occurring in the US are for fetal anomalies. This is like the partial birth abortion ban. It effected few but whipped up a fury because of the grisly nature of the procedure. There is no real desire to make a reasonable attempt to find the line at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (which is 22-23 weeks btw.)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The 20 week ban is for show. The number of abortions occurring after 20 weeks is trivial and is cover for the more aggregious actions like requiring all abortion clinics to be outpatient surgical centers thus shutting down all centers in a state. The 20 week number is inflammatory and diverts attention from everything else that is going on. The vast majority of 20 week+ abortions occurring in the US are for fetal anomalies. This is like the partial birth abortion ban. It effected few but whipped up a fury because of the grisly nature of the procedure. There is no real desire to make a reasonable attempt to find the line at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (which is 22-23 weeks btw.)

I think none of that, including the 20 week ban passes Casey. Casey says what's constitutional. At 20 weeks, maybe, theoretically, you could get a fetus to survive, but it hasn't been done yet.

The other issues are going to be shot down on a case by case basis. I can tell you that this being done to prevent women from being killed or injured by complications is ridiculous. If we want to compare the mortality rates for delivering a child vs. having an abortion, there'll be a lot of midwifes out of a job.

[barbino]

Originally Posted by Kevin

PP v. Casey staked out whatever middle ground there was fairly nicely. 20-week bans, however, don't seem to stake out that ground. If legislatures were to require a physician to make a specific finding after tests were run that the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb prior to an abortion, that might shore up the problems with a 20-week ban, but stating that at 20 weeks, women are forced to give birth rather than abort is attempting a one-size fits all application to a process which is very much not amenable to that approach.

The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb.

My husband was a 19 3/4 weeks in the womb baby, born in the 1960's. Did he have some medical issues? Yes. His entire extended family made sure that 2 members of the family were there to feed him & take care of him at all times for 2 entire months. He's been told by several doctors that it was almost a miracle that he lived. Kudos to my mother-in-law, who actually punched a doctor when he suggested that since she was only 19 and could have many more babies, she donate this one's body to science (she almost got kicked out of the hospital). So it's really hard to say just when a embryo/baby might be able to be viable outside the womb.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by barbino

My husband was a 19 3/4 weeks in the womb baby, born in the 1960's. Did he have some medical issues? Yes. His entire extended family made sure that 2 members of the family were there to feed him & take care of him at all times for 2 entire months. He's been told by several doctors that it was almost a miracle that he lived. Kudos to my mother-in-law, who actually punched a doctor when he suggested that since she was only 19 and could have many more babies, she donate this one's body to science (she almost got kicked out of the hospital). So it's really hard to say just when a embryo/baby might be able to be viable outside the womb.

There are readily available statistics out there on premature baby mortality. 19 3/4 in the 1960s is a miracle and if true, that's the earliest I've ever heard of. That's not a solid number to base infant viability around when crafting public policy. I would guess it much more likely that the doctor underestimated your husband's in-utero age.

Aside from that, awesome story, he clearly had an amazing family.

[Kelsium]

you know what they say, there's no better way to a woman's heart than through a trans-vaginal ultrasound.

[AXOmom]

Hmmm- I need to stop by this site more often – always an interesting conversation going on.


DubaiSis – I have a couple of questions, and I want to let you know before I ask them that I do consider myself prolife, but I completely agree with MysticCat’s point that these type of discussions go nowhere if we don’t understand the point of view of those with whom we disagree or think we disagree, so I want to assure you that these are not meant to sound snarky, but come from a desire to understand your perspective. If my attempts to paraphrase your points mischaracterize them, please correct me.

1) You stated that you didn’t want “religious people” or more specifically Christians cramming their beliefs down your throat. How do you think they are doing this – in other words, do you believe they are bypassing the usual political process that exists in order to affect change when we (meaning citizens) feel change is necessary or do you mean they are doing this in some other way and if so, how do you mean this? I have to say I was a little concerned with the comment that if this is what they want to do, they should start their own Christian country. It sounds a little like the response of conservatives to Vietnam War protestors in the 60”s: America- love it or leave it. Is this what you meant or am I misreading you?


2) You pointed out that there have been cases of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists bombing abortion clinics and there is no corollary among pro-choice groups. Are you arguing that when they (meaning those who would consider themselves liberal) feel strongly about an issue – when they consider it vital to maintaining or bringing about a just society that protects those whom they perceive to be helpless, those who are on the “left” so to speak in their political viewpoints, have never reacted extremely or with violence?

3) Finally, you indicated that you felt there was enough hypocrisy among “religious people” to be noted. This probably will sound snarky, I don’t, again, mean it that way, but I can’t think of another way to word it – how does one quantify the amount of hypocrisy in the roughly 27 million people in this country who identify religion as a high priority for them and determine there is enough of it to be noted? How would one draw the conclusion or find any evidence to support the conclusion that they are more hypocritical than those who claim no religious beliefs? What is the number or percentage of hypocrites within that group necessary to be worth noting? Since we all have moments of hypocrisy, how would you determine whether these people are consistently hypocritical or have moments of hypocrisy common to every human?

I realize these read like long essay questions. I apologize for that, and I understand if you don’t want to take the time necessary to answer all of them or any of them, but as I said, I’ve found that this site is, among other things, a great place to come and read different opinions and find out why people see things the way they do and how they’ve come to their conclusions and beliefs.

[DubaiSis]

I had decided to step out of this conversation, but I'll address this first.

Originally Posted by AXOmom

Hmmm- I need to stop by this site more often – always an interesting conversation going on.


DubaiSis – I have a couple of questions, and I want to let you know before I ask them that I do consider myself prolife, but I completely agree with MysticCat’s point that these type of discussions go nowhere if we don’t understand the point of view of those with whom we disagree or think we disagree, so I want to assure you that these are not meant to sound snarky, but come from a desire to understand your perspective. If my attempts to paraphrase your points mischaracterize them, please correct me.

1) You stated that you didn’t want “religious people” or more specifically Christians cramming their beliefs down your throat. How do you think they are doing this – in other words, do you believe they are bypassing the usual political process that exists in order to affect change when we (meaning citizens) feel change is necessary or do you mean they are doing this in some other way and if so, how do you mean this? I have to say I was a little concerned with the comment that if this is what they want to do, they should start their own Christian country. It sounds a little like the response of conservatives to Vietnam War protestors in the 60”s: America- love it or leave it. Is this what you meant or am I misreading you?

The problem is the screamers get the votes. Anti-choice people are NOT the majority in the US. The problem is Live and Let Live is not a call to aggressive action. It, by definition says you should let people do their own thing. The opposite is most definitely a call to action but skews what the majority actually thinks.

And I didn't say they should start their own Christian country. I said they should move to one. The hard truth for many to accept is the US was most definitely not set up as a Christian country. Most of the founders were either nonreligious or deists, what most would call Unitarian Universalists today. NOT Christian. And the primary idea was freedom FROM religion, and that one has desperately been twisted lately. Ever since Under God was added to the pledge of allegiance, people have really seriously forgotten what separation of church and state means.


2) You pointed out that there have been cases of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists bombing abortion clinics and there is no corollary among pro-choice groups. Are you arguing that when they (meaning those who would consider themselves liberal) feel strongly about an issue – when they consider it vital to maintaining or bringing about a just society that protects those whom they perceive to be helpless, those who are on the “left” so to speak in their political viewpoints, have never reacted extremely or with violence?

I'm sure you are not in support of terrorism, and causing violence because the law is not on your side is terrorism. Campaigning, screaming, yelling, trying to convince lawmakers to do the right thing is not terrorism. Even harassment is not terrorism, although it should be treated as mean spirited, if not illegal.

3) Finally, you indicated that you felt there was enough hypocrisy among “religious people” to be noted. This probably will sound snarky, I don’t, again, mean it that way, but I can’t think of another way to word it – how does one quantify the amount of hypocrisy in the roughly 27 million people in this country who identify religion as a high priority for them and determine there is enough of it to be noted? How would one draw the conclusion or find any evidence to support the conclusion that they are more hypocritical than those who claim no religious beliefs? What is the number or percentage of hypocrites within that group necessary to be worth noting? Since we all have moments of hypocrisy, how would you determine whether these people are consistently hypocritical or have moments of hypocrisy common to every human?

The problem is "religion as a high priority" means exactly jack squat. If you feel that being anti-choice is your religious obligation but vote against child healthcare, you are a hypocrite. You can't be all for the protection of life before it's life but against it once it is undeniably life. You can't be all about love your neighbor, except when that person is black, gay or poor. That is hypocracy. If you want to be a racist bigot woman hater screw the poor person (and I"m not saying you as an individual are any of this) then go for it. But don't then also say religion is a high priority in your life. A lot of people say religion is important, when what is important is being seen at church on Sunday. So cut that 27 million down to, in my completely off the cuff guess, to about 5 million seriously religious people who only want what is good and right for all people in the world and are willing to do what it takes to help every last American.

I realize these read like long essay questions. I apologize for that, and I understand if you don’t want to take the time necessary to answer all of them or any of them, but as I said, I’ve found that this site is, among other things, a great place to come and read different opinions and find out why people see things the way they do and how they’ve come to their conclusions and beliefs.

Now, I am going to step away from this conversation, because there is no answer that doesn't infuriate me. The USA USA we're number 1 thing is tragic and sad, and leads to this kind of I'm right and you need to die tragically and alone sort of legislation that is pervasive in the United States right now in oh so many areas of society.

[AGDee]

The 19 weeks thing might be disputable because they weren't doing ultrasounds to verify the age of a fetus back in those days. They were first used in 1954 in Scotland, started to be used in the UK in the 60's but weren't used in the US until well into the 70's. It can be difficult to know the exact age of a fetus without ultrasound because date of last menses is a fickle measure. Many women have light periods for a month or two. Or, if she wasn't very regular, it could be even more difficult to know. Therefore, even if true, it might be documentable.

Only his mother knows for sure, but it is also possible, at 19, that she didn't admit the pregnancy right away and wasn't totally honest about how far along she was. That wasn't unheard of then either. Many in my parents generation had a saying "The first one can come any time, the second one takes 9 months"

[DeltaBetaBaby]

There's also the difference between how long since conception, and how it is medically measured (usually from first missed period). The difference can be a few weeks.

But really, people, you know what would decrease abortion? Affordable contraceptives!

[Psi U MC Vito]

I can't name the state, but I feel like I heard at least one state required a trans-vaginal.

[AXOmom]

DubaiSis,

First off, thank you for your response. I’m sorry that you’re bowing out of the conversation, and I’m hope that was due to my plethora of questions. I would like to comment, nonetheless. This is long enough as is, so I’m not going to use the quote function and just number these as they were in the original questions.

1.The most recent Gallup poll on abortion is found here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). I don’t see an overwhelming majority in any category, but I’ll give you the majority viewpoint. I’m assuming you brought it up because you believe that the majority should prevail. I agree this is often the way our political system is supposed to work, but I would argue we aren’t a society where right is solely decided by majority opinion since, as history shows, the majority isn’t necessarily right and can be horrifically wrong. Consequently, we have fail safes in our system to prevent that from happening and protect the voice of the minority. Even in the instances where the majority typically does decide on law or policy, it only works if they follow through with their civic responsibility, and if they fail to do so, they have little grounds to complain when the opinion of a vocal minority becomes law instead.

I’m gathering this is what you meant when you indicated that you think certain groups “scream louder”. Since you obviously don’t mean they are literally screaming the majority into submission, I can’t guess what this would mean other than they protest, write their legislators, write the media, or put things out in the media, form action committees, give money to those action committees, get out and vote, encourage others who think like them to get out and vote….in other words, they exercise their right to free speech, their right to vote, and their right of association to make their voice heard. Is this what you mean and do you find any of this wrong? Which one of these steps is not available to opposing groups? I suppose you could be referring to a group engaging in harassment since you mentioned it, but this generally results in enough negative publicity to alienate your group and make it less likely their viewpoints will be heard, so I would disagree that this particular method would typically result in the views of a minority prevailing over the views of a majority.

I do agree with you that we are and have always been a pluralistic, secular society. I believe in the separation of church and state since the founder of my denomination was one of the first in the colonies to advocate for it. However, semantically, I disagree with you. I don’t think separation of church and state means freedom from religion or, as some in my circles claim, freedom for religion. I think it means a) the government cannot establish a state religion b) people are free to practice any religion and c) people are free not to practice any religion. Having said that, I’ve haven’t seen any evidence to suggest this means that those who are religious or claim to be religious must leave the views that were formed by those beliefs at the door when they vote or serve in government. No one comes to their beliefs in a vacuum, and it shouldn’t matter how anyone comes to their beliefs as long as everyone has an equal opportunity to express them and advocate for them through appropriate political channels.

We, as a society, impose our views on each other daily in that we have created laws (codified morality) that we agree to abide by regardless of whether we agree with the law. We have methods of changing them, but unless they change, we live by them. If we choose not to use the means available to us to change laws we believe are immoral or enact laws that we believe are moral, we can’t claim what exists was crammed down our throats by a minority since we have, in effect, willingly opened our mouths and swallowed by our own inaction.

I appreciate your clarification on your comment about Christians moving to a Christian country. Besides the obvious problem that none exists, the difference in wording doesn’t change my concern about the phrase. It’s still, in effect, America – Love it or leave it. I have issues with that as I think most people, conservative or liberal, would. While at some point, if we have used every legal means available to us, we will have to live under certain laws or rules we don’t adhere to, every group who mutually holds any view has a right and a responsibility, in my view, to fight (using legal means) for the America they envision. We can certainly choose to leave it at some point, but we shouldn’t be told that if we have a minority viewpoint, we should just shut up and deal or leave – that’s exactly why we have those fail safes Without them we would still have slavery, since at one point the abolitionists held a minority viewpoint. Thank heavens they screamed.

2. No I by no means believe in terrorism under any circumstances, regardless of how moral I may feel a cause to be. I asked the question because it sounded to me like you were suggesting that only those who would typically be described as conservatives or the right were engaging in extremist actions when they felt the issues were vital, and those whom we would typically describe as being on the left did not do such things, but I’ll assume that I missed your point here and leave that alone.

3. Actually I think MysticCat did a better job of expressing what my response to this probably would have been a few posts up, and he’s more succinct (LOL), so I’ll just defer to his post on this one.

[SydneyK]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. One of the joys of teaching Ethics is that I get to witness a discussion on abortion at least once a semester, and those classroom discussions are never as civil as this conversation has been.

I was unaware of the restrictions in Ohio - thanks, OP, for bringing this up!

DaffyKD, the article you shared was illuminating. It was difficult to read, but I'm glad I did. Thanks for sharing it.

Someone up-thread mentioned that people don't live/work in a vacuum, and so we shouldn't be surprised when a politician's actions/words are influenced by his/her religion. While I think this is true, I don't think it's right. In my opinion, a person's faith should guide their own decisions in life, but not the decisions of others (unless those others have expressed a belief in the same faith).

[squirrely girl]

Ugh... I loathe that every time the 20 week bans are discussed, the conversation turns to the earliest possible live birth and other anecdotes. Medically, viability refers to the point in gestation at which, with EXCELLENT medical care and a lot of LUCK, about ***HALF*** of fetuses could possibly survive... and even then they are looking at lengthy and expensive NICU stays. It's essentially a 50-50 point in development. Viability is NOT 20 weeks. So essentially these bans are arguing that there is no real acceptable reason for abortion at a point in which only anecdote and conjecture exist for successful live births.

Abortions after 20 weeks account for about 1 1/2 percent of all abortions performed in the US each year... the profound majority are performed on women with wanted pregnancies that developed abnormally with fetal conditions incompatible with life (see: anencephaly) and in cases preserving the life/health of the woman.

This is nowhere near a "middle ground" issue... unless you think forcing women to carry malformed pregnancies to term against their will is a swell idea.

Folks with shit for medical expertise need to excise themselves from other folks' medical decisions. End of story.