When you put this issue into the domain of the states right to intervene in human reproduction (which is the first thing that Ginsburg spoke to) what do expect except “dogmatically cleaved to ideology”. This is what Kennedy’s point was, it automatically rules out other alternatives. This is only a minority opinion because you’ve never heard what the majority opinion is. There are alternatives but as an intervention maybe we have to do this, but we don’t have to like it.
Dogma is the claim that something is so based only on the assertion of that claim. It has no rational, theoretical, or evidenciary support. Ginsburg’s assertion of the state’s legitimate standing to intervene in some cases was based on Constitutional law, and she would have had no trouble backing that up with citations. And the laws of the land are themselves the product of theory and reason.
The proposition that the state has no legitimate standing to require that viable fetuses only be killed where it is medically necessary is a flat assertion of right with no foundation in law or social theory, and nothing to justify it.
“This is only a minority opinion because you’ve never heard what the majority opinion is.”
The majority opinion was that the partial birth abortion ban was constitutional. I think Ginsburg had the better reasoning, but her opinion is not the controlling opinion because she did not have the numbers. The most her opinion can do is inform future courts of her thinking. But if she succeeds in persuading enough later justices, her position could become incorporated into a future controlling opinion. Until then, it’s just an argument in limbo.
Let me simplify this: Bullshit
The idea that you can close medical services, restrict access to health care and promote an ideological agenda based 0.2 percent of a much larger issue is not only unethical, discriminatory, and verified by statistical increase in maternal and infant mortality.
Really? Ginsburg said the state has legitimate standing, and my guess is that she can back that up with citations from constitutional case-law. I’ve never seen any theory of social contract or justice try to make the claim the state has no standing to protect viable fetuses from medically unnecessary deaths, have you? Because until you can actually show such support for that proposition, claiming bullshit (while providing nothing to support the claim of bullshit itself) does nothing to show that such support for that proposition exists.
“The idea that you can close medical services, restrict access to health care and promote an ideological agenda based 0.2 percent of a much larger issue is not only unethical, discriminatory, and verified by statistical increase in maternal and infant mortality.”
(1) That is not a legal, philosophical, or practical argument for why the state should have no legitimate standing to protect viable fetuses.
(2) None of those are even materially related to bans on elective late term abortions, and
(3) Even granting there is a political connection, the nature of that connection is that abortion opponents have been able to exploit public revulsion at elective late term abortions as the wedge to ram through these other measures, which means the harms of those measures are part of the political cost of fighting against bans on elective late term abortions. So your examples not only provide no rationale for fighting for elective late term abortions, it actually undermines the case for continuing in that fight.
The state does have a right to protect a life within the framework of the constitution. Your assuming that people intentionally want to end the the life of a viable fetus as simply elective, that is the controversy. The public also supports the death penalty so where is the line?
I’m sure it would gratify Ginsburg to know that you think maybe she had a good point when she rendered that opinion.
“Your assuming that people intentionally want to end the the life of a viable fetus as simply elective, that is the controversy.”
The controversy is whether we want to give people the green light to do that, even without knowing how many actually would, or whether we want our legal code to reflect society’s disapproval of the act–as is the usual basis for legal prohibitions. And it seems bizarre that there would even be such a controversy over banning something which is so overwhelmingly rejected by society.
“The public also supports the death penalty so where is the line?”
If you are talking about the line on the continuum between the death penalty and elective late term abortions, there is no continuum between those two. They don’t blend seamlessly from one into the other, and for most people the issue of innocence is enough to put them in entirely different categories. But if you are asking if we allow elective late term abortions to be banned, where will the line be drawn?; the line will be drawn to rule in abortions that are both late term and elective. The rest will be on the other side of the line, including those abortions that meet only one of those two tests.
I would hope so too. She would not be the first Supreme Court Judge though. I provided care to a New York Supreme Court judge once. She was a very interesting women, too.
The point here, which you continually disregard is that ANY GREEN light is not the issue. People make choices within an available context. All people choose what works for them. All you can do is give people a choice. If you haven’t figured this out by now, it may be beyond your understanding.
The death penalty does have some similarities though, it does reflect the states interest in protecting or not protecting life. It also requires an unambiguous public sentiment. You should read the link I posted.
I have addressed all relevant points and specifically pursued clarification on ambiguous points that looked like they might be relevant. The only points I have not addressed are the nonsensical ones and ones that appeared to have no bearing on the issue of banning elective late term abortions.
“…is that ANY GREEN light is not the issue.”
Fighting bans on elective late term abortions is fighting to give them the green light. That is the very crux of the issue. And it is that fight, above all, which does not have the support of humanity, reason, social justice theory, established case-law, and the will of the general public. It is that fight which has already been costly and which I predict will ultimately be doomed and futile.
“People make choices within an available context.”
And laws set limits on that context.
“All people choose what works for them.”
And sometimes people make choices that harm others, so we use laws to limit such choices.
“All you can do is give people a choice.”
That is obviously not true. We can also impose limits on choices by putting a high penalty on choices we want to discourage. In fact, that is the basis of our entire criminal justice system.
“If you haven’t figured this out by now, it may be beyond your understanding.”
I clearly understand that your claim here is factually incorrect. The deficit of understanding here appears to be wholly yours.
“The death penalty does have some similarities though”
That isn’t enough. Only if there is some sort of continuum connecting the two does it make any sense to ask where to draw the line between them. Otherwise, there’s nothing to draw a line on.
“You should read the link I posted.”
Why? The last link you directed me to contained only information with which I was already familiar, and it only supported my position and did nothing to support yours. And you couldn’t even explain why you directed me to it, so what’s different this time? I already know your latest link is not going to pose any sort of challenge to my position, so what point are you hoping this link will make? And why can’t you make it for yourself?
Well Trog, you show me the hoards of women lining up for late term abortions and you might have something. I really think your barking up the wrong tree and as much as we need more informed discussion on this issue you first half to have an open mind. I think this obsession with late term abortion is really a pretext to limit healthcare to women if you take even a superficial look at the issue you’ll see that is what is happening. It comes down to choice and as you said, some are good and some are not. Put out the light doesn’t necessarily mean there are better outcomes. Take a deep breath, this is not going away soon.
I already know I have something, because all the arguments have been on my side. (Though I’m still holding out for the possibility that there was an actual point you wanted to make with your last link.) If you are suggesting I might have something that would finally convince you, I’m going to assume the operational word there is “might”, because even if I produced testimony that thousands of women have gotten elective late term abortions, I’m pretty sure you would just move the goalpost and say that wasn’t enough to qualify as “hoards”. (or even hordes)
But we don’t ban things based on how popular they are. We ban them based on how wrong we think they are. It’s probably very rare for people to perform experimental drug trials on unsuspecting people without their consent, but no matter how often that actually happens, we’re never going to say, ‘okay, that’s rare enough that it really should be legal’.
“I really think your barking up the wrong tree and as much as we need more informed discussion on this issue you first half to have an open mind.”
Says the person clinging to a losing position. I’m open to changing my opinion–and I know that because I have done so on many occasions–but what that means it that I’m open to sound argumentation. My mind is not so open that I’ll uncritically accept just any unsupported proposition.
“I think this obsession with late term abortion is really a pretext to limit healthcare to women if you take even a superficial look at the issue you’ll see that is what is happening.”
If you mean conservatives have been using this as a political wedge issue to ram through a host of abortion restrictions and limitations which have nothing at all to do with elective late term abortions, then… yes! Of course. Exactly. Bingo. That’s what I’ve been saying. And it’s been a winning strategy for them, and that’s part of the political cost of the Dems letting themselves get suckered into having this fight where the R’s want the spotlight of public attention to be focused.
“Put out the light doesn’t necessarily mean there are better outcomes.”
Yes, just like it is possible that inflicting a surreptitious drug trial on someone without their consent could, in some cases, actually benefit them, so it isn’t certain that banning surreptitious drug trials will always and necessarily produce better outcomes. But consideration of the possible efficacy of such trials is also not why we would ban them. We wouldn’t say they are okay even if it could be shown they were more often helpful than harmful. We would still ban them simply because they are wrong. They are in violation of our society’s values about rights and autonomy. And elective late term abortions violate our values about protecting helpless innocents.
“Take a deep breath, this is not going away soon.”
Conservatives will never yield, retract, or surrender on the issue of elective late term abortions. It not only goes against their core values, it’s a fight that they relish. It energizes them and fills them with a sense of purpose and righteousness, and it has been nothing but political gold for them. Every possible outcome in each skirmish advantages them in some way. So how long this fight goes on is entirely up to those who are fighting against them on this. And how long they will keep at it will depend on how long it takes them to finally figure out how politically costly, strategically stupid, morally indefensible, and ultimately futile their fight is.
If you read the Supreme Court decision (the link in question) it states that it is unconstitutional to place an undue burden on women trying to access a facility providing abortions. That placing restrictive requirements on facilities without a concomitant medical benefit is an undue burden. I think that restricting access while at the same time criminalizing lateness in procedure is also an undue burden. We already have over two million people in prison,
You don’t have to provide testimony because I provided the most recent statistics by percent of abortions. Which could be another topic because this has a changing demographic that hasn’t been defined.
Just because you discount many of my points as irrelevant doesn’t make your points valid. Some of them are but never the less you have never shown how your position actually benefits society. Other countries that have similar restrictions have statistics on maternal and infant mortality that directly correlate to abortion restrictions. There are other social factors as well that are not addressed because your argument is purely political and ideological.
You have not demonstrated any benefit to society other than appeasing a group that doesn’t like abortion and think it is wrong. No one is saying that anyone that objects has to have one. It is not mandatory, women can refuse medical treatment and give up their life. It is a choice.
I don’t have a losing position, I’m not willing to apply third world practices when alternatives exist. I advocate reducing abortion by addressing the causes, not through further oppression of women.
Your drug trial example doesn’t work in your favor because it actually requires consent of participants. You’ll have to use your imagination on how that would be different than being sent home until your fetus dies to get treatment.
Conservative argument, just another example of the willingness to exploit anything. There is already a ban on partial birth abortions.
The exact quote (which is included in your link) is “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.” So they are only talking about pre-viability abortions (which are legal), and the facilities that provide them. The ruling goes even further to specify: “More importantly, in Casey we discarded the trimester framework, and we now use “viability” as the relevant point at which a State may begin limiting women’s access to abortion for reasons unrelated to maternal health.” So Hellerstedt explicitly affirms the constitutionality of restricting or banning elective late term abortions. Which, as I expected, supports my position and not yours.
“I think that restricting access while at the same time criminalizing lateness in procedure is also an undue burden.”
Restricting access to legal abortions, by itself, creates an undue burden. Criminalizing elective late term abortions does not create any sort of unconstitutional burden. The Supreme Court has never had a single ruling that would even imply that criminalizing elective late term abortions is unconstitutional. Now, if you combine one measure that creates an unconstitutional undue burden with another which does not, yes, the net effect is that the combined measure creates an undue burden, but none of that is due to the part of the measure which does not violate the constitution.
“We already have over two million people in prison,”
“You don’t have to provide testimony because I provided the most recent statistics by percent of abortions.”
Dr. Haskell’s testimony alone was that his clinic performed over a thousand elective late term abortions per year. And I very much doubt that you did provide statistics for what percent of abortions are elective late term abortions, because I’m pretty sure I would have noticed if you had provided figures that demolished your own position. But if I did somehow miss that, I would be delighted to be shown wrong, so by all means, do feel free to point out where you provided those statistics.
“Just because you discount many of my points as irrelevant doesn’t make your points valid.”
Well of course. Obviously. Posting irrelevant points has no relevance to the validity of my points. That’s what makes them irrelevant. If you want to actually challenge the validity of my points, then the challenge has to be relevant.
“Some of them are”
And you have yet to show that any of them are not.
“but never the less you have never shown how your position actually benefits society.”
I didn’t have to. That isn’t the test. We don’t ban elective late term abortions on the basis of any demonstrable benefit to society, same as we don’t ban cutting the feet off kittens to benefit society. We ban such things because we deem them wrong.
“Other countries that have similar restrictions have statistics on maternal and infant mortality that directly correlate to abortion restrictions.”
Okay, first, do you actually know of any other countries where elective late term abortions are legal? Second, are you suggesting that banning elective late term abortions correlates with increased infant mortality? Because that seems highly improbable. And third, do you understand why correlations are not enough to establish causation?
“There are other social factors as well that are not addressed because your argument is purely political and ideological.”
Hey, I think you may finally be getting it.
“You have not demonstrated any benefit to society other than appeasing a group that doesn’t like abortion and think it is wrong.”
Again, because I didn’t have to. And there are many people who think early term abortions should be legal, who nonetheless feel elective late term abortions should be banned, so it isn’t just people who think all abortions should be banned. In fact, those people are a very small minority. And the mere fact that people think elective late term abortion is wrong is enough reason to justify their support of a ban. There could be a benefit to society, but nobody has to demonstrate that because that is not the basis for the ban.
“No one is saying that anyone that objects has to have one.”
Just like nobody is saying that anyone who objects to cutting the feet off kittens has to cut the feet off kittens. That isn’t a reason not to ban cutting the feet off kittens.
“It is not mandatory, women can refuse medical treatment and give up their life.”
Once again, you have lost track. If an abortion is a medical treatment needed to save a life, then it is a medically justified abortion. Those would not be banned. By definition, an elective abortion would be one that is not medically necessary, so if it is needed to save a life, then it is not elective.
“I don’t have a losing position,”
If you are opposing bans on elective late term abortions, then you have a losing position.
“I’m not willing to apply third world practices when alternatives exist.”
Are you suggesting that allowing elective late term abortions is a first world practice? Who besides the U.S. allows it?
“I advocate reducing abortion by addressing the causes, not through further oppression of women.”
Is that just another irrelevancy, or are you actually proposing that banning elective late term abortions constitutes oppression of women? If that is your reason for opposing elective late term abortion bans, then it looks like your losing position is founded on yet another losing position. But do feel free to try to make the case that it is oppression.
“Your drug trial example doesn’t work in your favor because it actually requires consent of participants.”
The drug example was about performing experimental drug trials on unsuspecting people specifically without their consent. The lack of consent is an explicit and crucial component of the example. Yes, we do normally require consent, which is why it works as an example of something that we ban, even though it is very rare. The fact that it violates the requirement of consent is the very reason we ban it. (The point being that the reason we ban it is not because it is something that happens a lot, but because we deem it wrong.)
“You’ll have to use your imagination on how that would be different than being sent home until your fetus dies to get treatment.”
Elective abortions are not medically necessary. Medically necessary abortions are not elective. If an abortion is medically warranted, that fact alone is enough to ensure that it is legal.
“Conservative argument, just another example of the willingness to exploit anything.”
Especially when it works so strongly in their favor. But condemning conservatives for their winning strategy isn’t going to make them stop. All it will do is make them laugh.
“There is already a ban on partial birth abortions.”
So? Do you think telling that to conservatives will convince them they really should be satisfied with that and shouldn’t be reaching to expand the ban to cover all elective late term abortions? Again, great way to make them laugh, but I expect that’s all it will accomplish.
In terms of viability, that is determined by the Doctor, it is not an exact figure. There is a suggested period of time, You don’t get to discount my post and then use it as your position. Hellerstedt does no such thing. Your use of Dr. Haskell comments, an abortion provider is twenty years old. I think his premise is that procedures used were safer for women, either way the outcome is the same. If 0.2 percent of abortions are late term you can make the determination that hordes of women are not using this procedure as a first choice.
This isn’t a court of law and you are not the sole determinant of what is relevant. I’ll stop there as a courtesy to you.
In most methodologies, banning a social harm results in a social betterment. No you don’t have to demonstrate betterment, I guess just wait for the next court case. Even in your drug trial example you have to monitor and provide outcomes. In your case, you prescribe an implied consent where one really does not exist.
I’m not losing track here, you introduce testimonies and concepts then ignore any position but your own. If it is not a benefit to society and women don’t want it then why would you do it at all. Those people that object have the ability to not have the procedure done. And, once again, all late term abortions have a medical necessity.
In human behavior there is what happen before, the behavior, and what happens after. I think we can agree on that. Now consider the behavior as a woman getting pregnant. The law includes what happens before, the behavior, and what happens after. Those are all points of interest. Not just the behavior after 20 to 24 weeks of duration. I think you have to recognize these are your arguments not mine. It isn’t disputed that it happens, in your case, how often it happens may be a concern.
I am opposed to legal restraint that is founded on political or social ideology and not best medical practices. If banning late term abortion reduces our already higher than average maternal and infant mortality then I would support it. However, I think the opposite is true.
It isn’t even exact when doctors try to make the determination. And the point of viability can change depending on available support technology. The bans based on 20 weeks from fertilization almost certainly go into effect shortly before viability, but fetal development at 20 weeks is far enough along that most people don’t oppose elective abortion bans at that point. The Dems might have been able to budge the line if they had engaged or tried to negotiate, but they took the all or nothing gamble of total opposition, which left it to the Republicans to draft the terms they wanted, limited only by what they thought they could push through.
“You don’t get to discount my post and then use it as your position. Hellerstedt does no such thing.”
The supreme court definitely validates post-viability restrictions on elective abortions, so the only bit that might be in dispute is the time between when the bans first apply, and when fetal viability is reached. And if Dems want to hash that out in the courts to try to push the line back two or three weeks (for now) I think public support for that will be tepid, but I don’t think they will take nearly the political hit that they did by opposing such bans in total.
“Your use of Dr. Haskell comments, an abortion provider is twenty years old.”
And the legal landscape has changed since then, but it does establish there was a demand for elective late term abortions before the bans went into effect.
“If 0.2 percent of abortions are late term you can make the determination that hordes of women are not using this procedure as a first choice.”
At issue is not whether it is a first choice but whether it is an elective choice. If you go back to 2012, you can see a striking difference in the figures for Alabama and Georgia. Culturally, geographically, and demographically, there is not a lot of difference between those two states. But in 2012, the Alabama late term abortion ban was in effect (with the requisite exception for medical necessity to protect the life and health of the carrier) while the ban in Georgia was still being held up by a court injunction. So in 2012, there were 12 abortions at or beyond 21 weeks of gestation in Alabama, for a rate of 0.1% of all of their abortions, while in Georgia there were 1,128 abortions at or beyond 21 weeks, for a rate of 3.6% of all their abortions. Even if there were some reason that the medically necessary abortions in Georgia occurred at five times the rate they did in Alabama, that still looks like roughly a thousand late term abortions that are not in the medically necessary category–just for one state, just for one year. New Mexico also did not have a ban, and their rate at or past 21 weeks was 5.5%. Indiana had a ban, and their rate was 0.1%. New Jersey did not have the ban, and their rate was 3.2% (with reporting not required from private facilities). North Carolina had the ban, and their rate was 0.1%. Oregon did not have a ban, and their rate was 1.9%. Oklahoma had the ban and their rate was 0.0%. New York City did not have the ban, and their rate was 2.5% (1,832 abortions at or past 21 weeks). Detecting any pattern here?
“Even in your drug trial example you have to monitor and provide outcomes. In your case, you prescribe an implied consent where one really does not exist.”
No, you are talking about what is typical for drug trials. What I was talking about was rare crimes. Any regular Joe dosing his neighbors to see what happens would qualify, and I expect that happens pretty rarely.
“once again, all late term abortions have a medical necessity.”
I see testimony and statistics that strongly suggest otherwise. How did you reach your conclusion?
“In human behavior there is what happen before, the behavior, and what happens after. I think we can agree on that. Now consider the behavior as a woman getting pregnant. The law includes what happens before, the behavior, and what happens after. Those are all points of interest. Not just the behavior after 20 to 24 weeks of duration. I think you have to recognize these are your arguments not mine. It isn’t disputed that it happens, in your case, how often it happens may be a concern.”
Wow. I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.
“I am opposed to legal restraint that is founded on political or social ideology and not best medical practices.”
The medical determination as to whether a late term abortion is needed for medical reasons would be done according to medical practices.
“If banning late term abortion reduces our already higher than average maternal and infant mortality then I would support it.”
The only way banning elective late term abortions would reduce maternal mortality rate would be if having the abortion was more dangerous than having the baby. I gather that for late term abortions this used to be the case, but now I think there is no statistical difference. The only way banning elective late term abortions would reduce the infant mortality rate would be if there were some reason the babies that result from such elective abortion bans were, on average, healthier and more robust than normal babies. I can think of no reason to suppose that would be the case.
“However, I think the opposite is true.”
If the opposite of reducing mortality is not reducing mortality, then I would agree. I would not expect banning elective late term abortions to have an effect on either mortality rate, either way. So presumably, you would not support such bans because they do not lower maternal or infant mortality. But if you are basing it on outcomes like that, surely the converse would be that you would not oppose such bans if they do not raise maternal or infant mortality.