tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post5504113239420897709..comments2023-10-05T07:11:05.917-04:00Comments on Art at the Auction: Air Quotespetplutohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post-72109869342617902522008-10-18T19:01:00.000-04:002008-10-18T19:01:00.000-04:00"He's sort of sidestepping the major question by a..."He's sort of sidestepping the major question by assuming that there ARE circumstances where IDX is medically necessary - when, in fact, the Supreme Court found that there AREN'T."<BR/><BR/>I think, based on doctors' opinions on the matter and the story aidan's mom linked, the Supreme Court is wrong.<BR/><BR/>"There was no stare decisis conflit here. The PBA Ban was legal under the standards established in Roe and Casey, and it's in no way a blanket ban on abortion."<BR/><BR/>You misunderstand my point, which is corresponded with one of the issues Obama had when a late-term abortion ban (partial birth abortion is not a medical term and merely used by anti-abortionists in order to draw attention to their cause) came through the Illinois state legislature; that being that late-term abortion bans have, in many cases, not had provisions for health of the mother (something present in Roe), and are ambiguous enough to potentially be used to further erode abortion rights in future court cases.<BR/><BR/>The concern is often not the immediate effect; the concern is how the law can be interpreted once it is on the books if pro-lifers challenge abortion rights at a later point in time.<BR/><BR/>"I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but our view is by no means a universal view"<BR/><BR/>I don't care if my view isn't a universal view.<BR/><BR/>"So, assuming I were rabid pro-lifer, why would you say a mother's rights automatically come first? Why does a mother's life hold more moral weight than her intrauterine child when that baby is, by any reasonable metric, just as ALIVE?"<BR/><BR/>Mother's rights come first for a variety of reasons. One, in many cases, these fetuses have not yet reached the point of actual and full viability. In such cases, even if IDX is to be used, the mother's health should come before the fetus' as the fetus is not guaranteed life outside the womb. The woman is wholly alive, and the only thing preventing her continued life is a fetus who cannot yet survive on its own. The mother's health comes first.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, who is to say that a woman should die so that a fetus, something that is not considered a person until it is born, can live? Why should I defend the decision to abort a fetus, and those on the other side are given the position of deciding whether or not my argument is persuasive enough? It seems to me that MY position is not the one that needs ardent defending. If someone could explain why a fetus is more important than the woman housing it, I would be much obliged.<BR/><BR/>We allow justifiable homicide if the person who kills is in immediate danger of death at another's hands. Although the fetus is completely innocent, if s/he is responsible for the death of the woman carrying him/her, I find it strange that we would not grant the pregnant woman the same right to life that we would grant anyone else.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post-42017222753992621622008-10-18T17:31:00.000-04:002008-10-18T17:31:00.000-04:00"What happens with late-term abortion bans is that...<I>"What happens with late-term abortion bans is that they often leave out that caveat, and are written so broadly and so vaguely that all abortion rights could be rescinded."</I><BR/><BR/>There was no stare decisis conflit here. The PBA Ban was legal under the standards established in <I>Roe</I> and <I>Casey</I>, and it's in no way a blanket ban on abortion. The issue in <I>Gonzales v. Carhart</I> was whether there are any circumstances under which IDX - and only IDX - could save the life (or long-term health) of a pregnant mother. The Supreme Court found that there aren't (again, I have no idea if that's medically accurate - many people say the Court was wrong). I think this is why people are uncomfortable with Obama's position. He's sort of sidestepping the major question by assuming that there ARE circumstances where IDX is medically necessary - when, in fact, the Supreme Court found that there AREN'T. <BR/><BR/>"A mother's right to health should automatically supersede the fetus'. I don't understand an argument for bringing a child into this world if it will irreparably harm the mother - even if that fetus is potentially viable."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but our view is by no means a universal view - and, even if it were, I think you're begging the question here. There's gotta be a better argument for why a mother's rights come first. Implying that it's not worth birthing a child without a mother to provide for it (is that what you're saying?) seems like a pretty poor argument to me. <BR/><BR/>So, assuming I were rabid pro-lifer, why would you say a mother's rights automatically come first? Why does a mother's life hold more moral weight than her intrauterine child when that baby is, by any reasonable metric, just as ALIVE?mikhailbakuninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post-21022822323794025622008-10-17T21:28:00.000-04:002008-10-17T21:28:00.000-04:00Thank you for pointing me to that blog and those s...Thank you for pointing me to that blog and those specific blog posts, aidan's mom. Cecily's story is beyond heartbreaking and moving, and her eloquence about such a horrible situation is incredibly awe-inspiring.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post-19532917922792944692008-10-17T18:45:00.000-04:002008-10-17T18:45:00.000-04:00This woman. This real live woman needed an IDX. ...This woman. This real live woman needed an IDX. Read her story...and her take on the "air quotes"...it is a worthy read.<BR/><BR/>http://www.uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2008/03/speaking-to-the.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2008/10/dear-john-mccai.htmlLorihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17735524011177612504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post-6201327797507876482008-10-17T14:52:00.000-04:002008-10-17T14:52:00.000-04:00"I think it's certainly fair to debate whether the..."I think it's certainly fair to debate whether there are any circumstances under which IDX would be appropriate. If any abortion procedure constitutes murder, it's IDX."<BR/><BR/>And Obama and many pro-choice politicians (including Hillary Clinton) are for late-term abortion bans as long as the life and health of the mother are protected. What happens with late-term abortion bans is that they often leave out that caveat, and are written so broadly and so vaguely that all abortion rights could be rescinded.<BR/><BR/>"I also think that proponents of choice need to more seriously consider the moral implications of "aborting" a viable fetus, rather than defaulting to the position that the mother's rights automatically supersede the fetus's."<BR/><BR/>A mother's right to health should automatically supersede the fetus'. I don't understand an argument for bringing a child into this world if it will irreparably harm the mother - even if that fetus is potentially viable.<BR/><BR/>"OR she was the victim of rape or incest, which apparently somehow implies a desire to be pregnant."<BR/><BR/>I agree, John. Unfortunately, even that does not supersede the 'right to life' on the anti-choice side of the debate many times. Those cases are also demeaned and not seen as the norm. After all, if you make an exception for rape, all of those 'pro-abortionists' will start crying rape whenever they want one.petplutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053307189721906583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post-33994276620022071792008-10-17T14:14:00.000-04:002008-10-17T14:14:00.000-04:00As you probably know, I'm pro-choice . . . up to a...As you probably know, I'm pro-choice . . . up to a point. <BR/><BR/>I don't know how I feel about IDX, but I think it's certainly fair to debate whether there <I>are</I> any circumstances under which IDX would be appropriate. If any abortion procedure constitutes murder, it's IDX. <BR/><BR/>In fact, one of the central issues in <I>Gonzales v. Carhart</I> - where the Supreme Court upheld the PBA Ban - was whether there are any legitimate health concerns that would make the Ban unconstitutional within the standards established in <I>Casey</I>. The Court found that there weren't, but opponents of the ban charge that the justices relied too heavily on Congressional reports.<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what the truth is here, obviously, and I certainly don't think that McCain should be diminishing the heath concerns of a pregnant woman. But I also think that proponents of choice need to more seriously consider the moral implications of "aborting" a viable fetus, rather than defaulting to the position that the mother's rights automatically supersede the fetus's.<BR/><BR/>Also, I've never heard that extracting a dead fetus would be considered IDX under the statute. If that's true, I find it very troubling . . . but I have a hard time believing it. <BR/><BR/>(A lot of what I've read on Kos tends to be bullshit.)mikhailbakuninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158822054353654203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5961006065192244756.post-11413059981948677312008-10-17T12:01:00.000-04:002008-10-17T12:01:00.000-04:00One quick comment: "After all, she decided to get ...One quick comment: <BR/><BR/>"After all, she decided to get pregnant" OR she was the victim of rape or incest, which apparently somehow implies a desire to be pregnant.<BR/><BR/>Other than that, I'd say everything was spot on. I wonder what the "blog" of "unnecessary" quotation marks has to say on the subject?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569180426066178711noreply@blogger.com