I do not buy the "If you are explaining and defending, you are losing the argument." A huge problem is the rejection of nuance and context. So we get stupid memes instead of well-reasoned arguments. Furthermore, an explanation is not prima facie a defense. Both sides have accused me of "defending" when I am merely explaining a position, whether I hold that position or not. Debate Team 101.
I do not buy the "If you are explaining and defending, you are losing the argument." A huge problem is the rejection of nuance and context. So we get stupid memes instead of well-reasoned arguments. Furthermore, an explanation is not prima facie a defense. Both sides have accused me of "defending" when I am merely explaining a position, whether I hold that position or not. Debate Team 101.
There's the world we live in and the world as we wish it were.
If you have to spend 10 minutes explaining that, "Yes, I voted for abortions right up to the moment the child is born because there's this one in one million time that it *might* be necessary..."
Your sentence is framing it all wrong. You are buying into limiting the definition of abortion to an elective procedure instead all abortions as opposed to miscarriages medically defined as spontaneous abortions. Doctors have been performing abortions for hundreds of years as an emergency medical procedure to save the life of the mother. However, we have learned that what seems obvious often needs to be specified by law to prevent bad actors taking advantage of loopholes. Also not one in a million. 1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy in the US. That is 13 in a thousand.
Yes, I have read it. Please show me where it says not after the third trimester (or when "viable" and define viable).
If it doesn't say it can't be done in the 39th week...then it can be done.
You just proved my point...1.3% after the 21st week (hint: third trimester is after 24 weeks, which would be even less)....And my reference to "one in a million" was the ONE time an abortion would need to be done in the 39th week (which is ridiculous - it can borne by caesarian) out of ALL pregnancies in the 39th week.
So, again, sacrificing the 1% is not worth getting the 99%? It's whole loaf or nothing?
If you need to write a 1000 word essay (that Dallas News article) explaining that..."Yes partial birth abortion is really, really rare, but should still be protected..."
You are losing the argument.
(And, BTW - that whole DMN piece is just stupid. "No, they don't perform nine month abortions - those are called C-sections...but there is this really rare procedure that is done at nine months where the baby is basically born but is killed right before it leaves the birth canal. But, hey, it's rare, so we should protect it, too."
Red herring alert. Most explanations can be accomplished in a few paragraphs. What damages the public's understanding of complex issues is slogans, memes and often 140 or 280 word limitations.
Yes, I have read the bill. It allows abortions at any time, anywhere. It is fodder for the GOP to claim it's about killing babies at 39 weeks.
Caesarians aren't feasible, but killing the baby and bringing it out the vaginal opening is? Get real. Surgery, aka, a caesarian, is ALWAYS an option.
What it meant was dying on a hill (for a bill you will absolutely loose) for that 1% of abortions vs writing a bill that DOESN'T protect that 1% and gaining the support of a GOP Senator or two, PLUS the support of 75% of the country. That's called good politics.
It's really not that hard to understand. Is your real name Chuck Shummer?
Surgery is not always an option. Cesarean delivery is associated with future subfertility and several subsequent pregnancy risks such as placenta previa, uterine rupture, and stillbirth. . Late term abortions generally occur because of lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. If a womanтАЩs health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued usually via Casarean, not abortion.
First, I feel I need to correct an underlying assumption of yours. I personally oppose abortion. I also understand that biblically, abortion is a property issue, as Exodus 21:22 indicates. "Partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one. No doctor partially delivers a HEALTHY, VIABLE baby, and then kills it. By writing such nonsense, you show that you are influenced by right-wing propaganda.
0.2% of abortions are dilation and extraction abortion. 0.02% (less than 150) of all abortions occur after 26 weeks gestation, becoming rarer and rarer as full-term approaches. When some members of Congress tried to amend the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to ban only those that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would actually leave the procedure legal.
If the baby is healthy but cannot be delivered vaginally, doctors use a Caesarean section. In fact, 25% of deliveries are Caesarean. Surgery is not ALWAYS an option, but mostly likely in the vast majority of cases it is an option.
You say you read the bill but perhaps you didn't understand what you read?
From the bill:
----------------------------------
"Sec. 4. Permitted Services.
(a) General Rule. - A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular procedure.
(9) A prohibition after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
(10) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient's health."
-------------------------------
The bill allows no restrictions on abortion at any time up to fetal viability.
The bill allows no restrictions after fetal viability IF it is determined that the life or health of the mother is at risk.
Just like Roe and just like the majority of the population supports.
You may be willing to let your wife/girlfriend/whatever be part of the 1% that dies but I'm not.
Your seeming callousness towards "only" the 1% that will be sentenced to death is reminiscent of TX Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saying the olds should be sacrificed for the economy.
News flash: Roe is dead. Gone. No longer in existence.
Second news flash: there is NOT the votes to pass what you want - just take a gander at what happened in the Senate today.
So your desire to тАЬreplaceтАЭ or codify Roe is a dead letter.
So your starting position is complete (or nearly so) bans in many states. Tilting at windmills and bring up bills that are going to fail isnтАЩt going to change that fact.
Maybe, just maybeтАжtry to pass what you can (up to 20 weeks? Rape, incest life of the mother?) instead of being a 5 year old demanding everything and getting nothing.
I do not buy the "If you are explaining and defending, you are losing the argument." A huge problem is the rejection of nuance and context. So we get stupid memes instead of well-reasoned arguments. Furthermore, an explanation is not prima facie a defense. Both sides have accused me of "defending" when I am merely explaining a position, whether I hold that position or not. Debate Team 101.
There's the world we live in and the world as we wish it were.
If you have to spend 10 minutes explaining that, "Yes, I voted for abortions right up to the moment the child is born because there's this one in one million time that it *might* be necessary..."
You loose.
Your sentence is framing it all wrong. You are buying into limiting the definition of abortion to an elective procedure instead all abortions as opposed to miscarriages medically defined as spontaneous abortions. Doctors have been performing abortions for hundreds of years as an emergency medical procedure to save the life of the mother. However, we have learned that what seems obvious often needs to be specified by law to prevent bad actors taking advantage of loopholes. Also not one in a million. 1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy in the US. That is 13 in a thousand.
Yes, I have read it. Please show me where it says not after the third trimester (or when "viable" and define viable).
If it doesn't say it can't be done in the 39th week...then it can be done.
You just proved my point...1.3% after the 21st week (hint: third trimester is after 24 weeks, which would be even less)....And my reference to "one in a million" was the ONE time an abortion would need to be done in the 39th week (which is ridiculous - it can borne by caesarian) out of ALL pregnancies in the 39th week.
So, again, sacrificing the 1% is not worth getting the 99%? It's whole loaf or nothing?
Interesting calculation.
Yes, you have read what?
Caesareans are performed when feasible. Sometimes they are not. According to the data, medical abortions are required about 13 out of 1000 times. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/10/30/there-s-a-term-for-abortion-at-nine-months-cesarean-section/
"So, again, sacrificing the 1% is not worth getting the 99%? It's whole loaf or nothing?" What does that even mean?
And, again...
If you need to write a 1000 word essay (that Dallas News article) explaining that..."Yes partial birth abortion is really, really rare, but should still be protected..."
You are losing the argument.
(And, BTW - that whole DMN piece is just stupid. "No, they don't perform nine month abortions - those are called C-sections...but there is this really rare procedure that is done at nine months where the baby is basically born but is killed right before it leaves the birth canal. But, hey, it's rare, so we should protect it, too."
FFS)
Red herring alert. Most explanations can be accomplished in a few paragraphs. What damages the public's understanding of complex issues is slogans, memes and often 140 or 280 word limitations.
For the cheap seats:
Yes, I have read the bill. It allows abortions at any time, anywhere. It is fodder for the GOP to claim it's about killing babies at 39 weeks.
Caesarians aren't feasible, but killing the baby and bringing it out the vaginal opening is? Get real. Surgery, aka, a caesarian, is ALWAYS an option.
What it meant was dying on a hill (for a bill you will absolutely loose) for that 1% of abortions vs writing a bill that DOESN'T protect that 1% and gaining the support of a GOP Senator or two, PLUS the support of 75% of the country. That's called good politics.
It's really not that hard to understand. Is your real name Chuck Shummer?
Surgery is not always an option. Cesarean delivery is associated with future subfertility and several subsequent pregnancy risks such as placenta previa, uterine rupture, and stillbirth. . Late term abortions generally occur because of lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. If a womanтАЩs health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued usually via Casarean, not abortion.
BS. Surgery is ALWAYS an option. It maybe the option of last resort, but it is always an option.
Saying that surgery isnтАЩt an option but partially delivering a baby and then killing is better?
Give me a break.
First, I feel I need to correct an underlying assumption of yours. I personally oppose abortion. I also understand that biblically, abortion is a property issue, as Exodus 21:22 indicates. "Partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one. No doctor partially delivers a HEALTHY, VIABLE baby, and then kills it. By writing such nonsense, you show that you are influenced by right-wing propaganda.
0.2% of abortions are dilation and extraction abortion. 0.02% (less than 150) of all abortions occur after 26 weeks gestation, becoming rarer and rarer as full-term approaches. When some members of Congress tried to amend the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to ban only those that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would actually leave the procedure legal.
If the baby is healthy but cannot be delivered vaginally, doctors use a Caesarean section. In fact, 25% of deliveries are Caesarean. Surgery is not ALWAYS an option, but mostly likely in the vast majority of cases it is an option.
You say you read the bill but perhaps you didn't understand what you read?
From the bill:
----------------------------------
"Sec. 4. Permitted Services.
(a) General Rule. - A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider's patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular procedure.
(9) A prohibition after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
(10) A limitation on a health care provider's ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient's health."
-------------------------------
The bill allows no restrictions on abortion at any time up to fetal viability.
The bill allows no restrictions after fetal viability IF it is determined that the life or health of the mother is at risk.
Just like Roe and just like the majority of the population supports.
You may be willing to let your wife/girlfriend/whatever be part of the 1% that dies but I'm not.
Your seeming callousness towards "only" the 1% that will be sentenced to death is reminiscent of TX Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saying the olds should be sacrificed for the economy.
How about this:
Explain how YOU would get the bill that just got rejected by the Senate passed. Tell us how YOU you do the politics to make that happen.
WeтАЩll wait.
For fucks sake man.
News flash: Roe is dead. Gone. No longer in existence.
Second news flash: there is NOT the votes to pass what you want - just take a gander at what happened in the Senate today.
So your desire to тАЬreplaceтАЭ or codify Roe is a dead letter.
So your starting position is complete (or nearly so) bans in many states. Tilting at windmills and bring up bills that are going to fail isnтАЩt going to change that fact.
Maybe, just maybeтАжtry to pass what you can (up to 20 weeks? Rape, incest life of the mother?) instead of being a 5 year old demanding everything and getting nothing.