Your thoughts on Cuomo's reproductive health act?

[Kenny]

Makes sense to me. Maybe read it again without willfully looking for something to disagree with?

Like you just did?

 

[Curious George]

I understand where we crossed wires..

I was writing in reference and in context to my response to Skeptic Thinker. I didn't realize a changed subject matter.

Your question 1 which I quoted specifically addressed a fetus in gestation. Were you not referring to a fetus in the womb, but rather a birthed infant in some gestational apparatus?

Are we not discussing abortion? You want to discuss terminology. Yes, a birthed infant is a baby, while a fetus is still in tje womb. That is how the words are defined. I am aware that you believe we shpuld redefine terms based on your beliefs, bit we do not. An infant and a fetus are distinguishable. This is to say nothing about the human rights they do or may possess. This is to say nothing of whether abortion is right, wrong or neither. It is merely terminology. That terminology denotes a distinction. That distinction is relevant to this very conversation.

I do not mind you using incorrect terms. Your point is clear either way. Just be sure you do not confuse yourself with the equivocation because then I will get confused.

 

[Kenny]

Your question 1 which I quoted specifically addressed a fetus in gestation. Were you not referring to a fetus in the womb, but rather a birthed infant in some gestational apparatus?

Are we not discussing abortion? You want to discuss terminology. Yes, a birthed infant is a baby, while a fetus is still in tje womb. That is how the words are defined. I am aware that you believe we shpuld redefine terms based on your beliefs, bit we do not. An infant and a fetus are distinguishable. This is to say nothing about the human rights they do or may possess. This is to say nothing of whether abortion is right, wrong or neither. It is merely terminology. That terminology denotes a distinction. That distinction is relevant to this very conversation.

I do not mind you using incorrect terms. Your point is clear either way. Just be sure you do not confuse yourself with the equivocation because then I will get confused.

OK... we disagree as far as when a baby is a baby in reference to terminology -- as long as my point was clear, it is good enough.

 

[Curious George]

OK... we disagree as far as when a baby is a baby in reference to terminology -- as long as my point was clear, it is good enough.

Yes, but given my point you did not address mine. Would you care to weigh in on that?
Specifically that government intervention requires some threshold of interest between the rights involved and the action taken.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Like you just did?

Truly we live in a post irony age *eyeroll*

 

[Kenny]

Yes, but given my point you did not address mine. Would you care to weigh in on that?
Specifically that government intervention requires some threshold of interest between the rights involved and the action taken.

I believe that is what I am saying. (Perhaps we are looking at the same diamond at a different angle?)

Of course, the problem is that the government is simply the voice of the people unless the Supreme Court weighs in.We can see that from state to state. I suppose it will eventually reach that crescendo at the Bench.

 

[Kenny]

Truly we live in a post irony age *eyeroll*

 

[Curious George]

I believe that is what I am saying. (Perhaps we are looking at the same diamond at a different angle?)

Of course, the problem is that the government is simply the voice of the people unless the Supreme Court weighs in.We can see that from state to state. I suppose it will eventually reach that crescendo at the Bench.

I am not addressing your conviction; I don't doubt that you believe what you are saying.

SCOTUS already made a ruling concerning the issue. I do not hear too many arguments that address that. Instead, I hear emotional appeals: blurring definitions, sanctity of life, demoniziation of democrats and pro-choice supporters.

You seem to think that you perceived opponents do not value life or fetuses. You are wrong.

There is a famous homicide case: Keeler v. Superior Court

That was the case which motivated change in California law to include foeticide as a punishable offense. The reason for this is that people recognize the value of fetuses (even in liberal states). We are not dealing with one side who values fetuses and another side who does not. We are dealing with an assortment of people who reasonably insist that the government are not involved with choices regarding one's unless they have a very, very good reason. In the case of abortion, no such reason exists.

 

[Kenny]

I am not addressing your conviction; I don't doubt that you believe what you are saying.
.

You are in no position to judge that

.

SCOTUS already made a ruling concerning the issue. I do not hear too many arguments that address that. Instead, I hear emotional appeals: blurring definitions, sanctity of life, demoniziation of democrats and pro-choice supporters.
.

SCOTUS will address it again since each state is looking at it differently. I don't hear you acknowledging that. Instead, I hear demonization of pro-life supporters, blurring of definitions, and emotional statements,

.

You seem to think that you perceived opponents do not value life or fetuses. You are wrong.
.

You seem to think that your opponents (I don't classify people of opposite positions "opponents" but apparently you do"), that we don't value what women go through, the reality that in some cases the removal of life is necessary. You are wrong.

.

There is a famous homicide case: Keeler v. Superior Court

That was the case which motivated change in California law to include foeticide as a punishable offense. The reason for this is that people recognize the value of fetuses (even in liberal states). We are not dealing with one side who values fetuses and another side who does not. We are dealing with an assortment of people who reasonably insist that the government are not involved with choices regarding one's unless they have a very, very good reason. In the case of abortion, no such reason exists.

Yet, in New York it is stripped away:

The Reproductive Health Act strips abortions from the penal code and adds the following language:

The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care is a fundamental component of every individual's health, privacy and equality.

"Therefore, it is the policy of the state that:

"Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization. Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article."

Abortion laws in New York: How they changed with the Reproductive Health Act

 

[SkepticThinker]

For the same reasons you ignored mine?

I asked first.

For various reason.

So your answer is "No, I don't think medical decisions should be left between doctor and patient, and I think that people should be forced to donate their kidneys to other dying people."
Correct?

1) What about the rights of the baby that is 8 months in gestation?
2) Why is it ok to trample on his/her rights?
3) Who will speak for the baby about their own life decisions?

In the cases we're discussing, the baby is either already dead, most likely to die, or most likely to kill the mother. The baby lives inside and depends upon another human being. If that human being is at risk, what do you think the baby's rights are more important than the mother, who is already a full grown person with social ties, friends, family and potentially other children in her care already?

4) Kidney is not applicable.

Sure it is. We don't force people to forfeit their lives to save other people that need kidney transplants. Why should we force people to forfeit their lives when a pregnancy goes horribly wrong?

5) Is it really just between them or does the doctor promote it as an authority during a very emotionally charge time? Forcing his will? (It is difficult enough for women)
6) How many doctors do you have to go through to have one help you when you want to keep the baby?

It's between them, like every other medical decision is. Why do you think this is your business in any way?

Honestly, I find this view a bit condescending to women. Do you really think pregnant women aren't capable of making difficult medical decisions for themselves, after discussing options with a doctor? Gimme a break.

Example:

New York passed a law allowing abortion for “health” reasons (even emotional or familial) through the entire pregnancy, Sudlow told Live Action News that from the moment the ultrasound technician said, “That’s one strong heart in there,” she knew she would do anything to protect her child.

At 20 weeks along, she was given that opportunity when at her 20-week anatomy ultrasound appointment, she and her husband learned something was wrong with the baby. Hannah was rushed to maternal-fetal health, and after three hours of ultrasounds, the doctor turned to the couple and said matter-of-factly, “Do you have any idea what’s going on?” Sudlow replied that no, she didn’t.

“He said, ‘Basically everything is wrong with this child. She has cysts on her brain. She is four weeks behind on her growth. She has intrauterine growth restriction, a hypo-plastic left ventricle, a single ventricle heart. She is missing half her heart. She has a cleft palate, clenched fists, and oh, by the way, two clubbed feet. Oh and by the way, it’s a girl,'” Sudlow explained.

An amniocentesis was performed and the results came back that the baby girl, named Evelyn, had Down syndrome. Doctors said that if Sudlow and her husband were going to keep Evelyn, they needed to see a cardiologist and have a plan in place.

The cardiologist confirmed that Evelyn had a double outlet right ventricle and no left ventricle. There was no left side to her heart at all and he seemed confused because what he was seeing fell in line with Trisomy 18, not Down syndrome. Still, he said the surgery Evelyn would need would be complicated, but doable. That was until the lab director realized that they had mixed up Evelyn’s test with someone else’s. Evelyn didn’t have Down syndrome. She had Trisomy 18.

When a doctor from Maternal Fetal Health called to tell Sudlow of the error, he told her that Trisomy 18 is considered incompatible with life. Then he said he had spoken with a doctor at her OB/GYN office and that doctor had informed him that Sudlow would be terminating the pregnancy and that he had already scheduled the abortion appointment. Sudlow was shocked and said she did not want an abortion. The doctor didn’t agree. (why the pressure? - why does a doctor schedule something without talking to the parents?)

“He said, ‘You can’t keep her. I don’t think you know how serious this is,'” said Sudlow.

Obviously upset, she called the doctor who had scheduled the abortion – a doctor she had never met – and told him she wasn’t doing it. As she sobbed on the phone, he told her to save her energy for the child she was carrying – the child he had scheduled an abortion for without consent. After she refused the abortion again, the office she had been going to for her entire pregnancy refused to provide her with prenatal care. (I thought the decision was the mothers and not the doctors? So doctors are going to force them to do what they want?)

“The driving force behind my pregnancy was that I did not start Evelyn’s heartbeat and I did not have the authority to decide when it stopped,” said Sudlow. “She was ALWAYS safest inside my womb, and I had to protect her.”

Sudlow searched for a doctor to care for her and her baby and finally found one. However, it was the main center for high-risk pregnancies and they would only take her on as a patient if she made it to 25 weeks. Sudlow agreed and waited. Then came the good news.

At 30 weeks, the cysts on Evelyn’s brain went away. At 32 weeks, one of her feet straightened out. That same week, Evelyn went into heart failure and doctors said she would die at any moment. But by week 37, her heart began to work again and she began to kick and grow again. At 37 weeks, her hands opened. Doctors discussed with Sudlow and her husband the kind of care they wanted Evelyn to receive at birth.

“I knew she needed a chance,” said Sudlow. “I made it very clear that she was not to be a DNR. She was to have full intervention.”

Baby Evelyn was born safely at 39 weeks. Eight doctors were there and despite what they had predicted, she didn’t die. She also no longer had a cleft palate. Evelyn was taken immediately for oxygen and spent three weeks in the hospital. Despite the proof that she was a fighter, the outlook was still grim. The surgery that had been discussed when doctors thought Evelyn had Down syndrome was no longer an option because she had Trisomy 18. Doctors sent Evelyn home still believing she would die — and therefore treating her differently.

By the time she was two months old, Evelyn’s heart began to cut off her oxygen supply and her liver was failing. The cardiologist said there was nothing they could do, and they placed her on hospice. It was Christmas, but shortly after New Year’s, the family met with the one cardiologist at the office that had never treated Evelyn before. She shocked the new parents when she told them that there was something that could be done to fix Evelyn’s heart. The couple was hopeful, but when the doctor spoke to the cardiology surgical team, they turned down the surgery. They felt that the risk of Evelyn dying on the table or never being able to come off the breathing tube outweighed any chance of her living longer than two more weeks.

“Then we got a call the next morning that there is a doctor that is willing to do the surgery even though she may not make it,” said Sudlow. “The surgery took six hours. She came off the breathing tube six hours later. And she has been fine ever since.”

Thanks to doctors that were willing to try, Evelyn is now two years old and is a big sister to Esme, just 10 months younger than she is. Her heart is stable and though every few months she visits the hospital for oxygen support, she has no form of heart failure.

“She is thriving. She’s laughing. She knows her sister. She knows her name,” said Sudlow. “She is meeting milestones we were told she never would. She is our greatest, greatest, greatest joy. She has brought so much love and life to our family. The only tragedy would have been to never have met Evelyn. She has brought so much to our life.”

Sudlow wants every parent of a child with a health condition to know that Evelyn’s days may be numbered, but so are everyone’s.

“Only God is the holder of time. That is freedom to me,” she explained. “It frees me up to be Evelyn’s mom and enjoy her like I would any other child. I pray for wisdom with her health and God to open doors when something needs done, but knowing her life has its own purpose takes that weight off of my shoulders.”

“The moment we stop defending the weakest & most vulnerable in our society will be a complete tragedy,” wrote Sudlow on Facebook. “I will always share my story. I always stand in the gap. I will always choose life.”

That was her decision to make, for her own reasons. Someone else may have come to a different decision. But it's not your place to make life changing (or life-ending) decisions for other people. I still don't know why you think it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, it has.... I think it has balanced to far against life.

If "Emilia Grabarczyk was only 8.6 inches (22cm) long and weighed 8 ounces (229 grams) when she was born at a hospital in the western German city of Witten nine months ago." (2016) and is fully alive and functioning... why not just let the mother give her away? Save them both?

Why snuff out the life of a real child?

Why not just let a childless couple who wants a baby but can't have one just adopt it?

Have we become so calloused as to think THIS isn't a baby because it is in a womb but "POOF" it is taken out of the womb and now it a baby?
View attachment 26887

added

today:

View attachment 26886

Uh no, because that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Kenny]

In the cases we're discussing, the baby is either already dead, most likely to die, or most likely to kill the mother. The baby lives inside and depends upon another human being. If that human being is at risk, what do you think the baby's rights are more important than the mother, who is already a full grown person with social ties, friends, family and potentially other children in her care already?

I think this summarizes.

If we are talking about the baby is either already dead, most likely to die, or most likely to kill the mother - I agree.

"If that human being is at risk, what do you think the baby's rights are more important than the mother, who is already a full grown person with social ties, friends, family and potentially other children in her care already?" -

The mother and father make the decision if the mother is in danger and if you can save the child at the same time (should she decide it is the child that must run the risk) - give a try.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think this summarizes.

If we are talking about the baby is either already dead, most likely to die, or most likely to kill the mother - I agree.

"If that human being is at risk, what do you think the baby's rights are more important than the mother, who is already a full grown person with social ties, friends, family and potentially other children in her care already?" -

Those are the exact cases were are talking about here. So we agree then.

The mother and father make the decision if the mother is in danger and if you can save the child at the same time (should she decide it is the child that must run the risk) - give a try.

The decision always belongs between the parents and the doctor. That is, and always has been my position.