Arizona bans abortion except to save life of mother

[Temujin]

If the babies life is in danger and the mothers life is in danger, you should do whatever you can to save both lives. But I do understand you may only be able to save one.

I don’t think we should conflate this, with “elective” abortions. It only helps to complicate a discussion seeking to resolve the main issue.

True enough. It comes down to how elastic the demand for abortions is. I suspect that a great many can be averted by taking appropriate measures, but it will take increasingly more effort to get the numbers down further until the last few are inevitable. The question then is just how much effort and money is society prepared to put in to reduce the demand for abortion. That will determine what society feels is acceptable. I would say that most European countries are at that point now,where abortion is no longer much of an issue because it's under control and isn't causing any undue problems . I don't think the US is clear on what an acceptable level of abortions is, with some saying none, and others saying as many as it takes. Perhaps the current furore is a good thing. Roe v Wade was never going to hold for ever.

 

[Temujin]

Question for you Temujin, are you a Marxist, sure sounds like it. Be honest. What are your political leanings?

I'm a liberal, in the UK rather than the US sense. A liberal over here is centrist. I'm as far from Marxism as I am from the far right.

 

[BMS]

In terms of western societies, Temujin is marxist and extremist.

 

[DaGeo]

I'm a liberal, in the UK rather than the US sense. A liberal over here is centrist. I'm as far from Marxism as I am from the far right.

Ok, so you’re “liberal”. Funny how closely aligned liberals and Marxists are ideologically. Not only do they share the same ideologies but they rally behind the same ideologues

 

[Temujin]

Ok, so you’re “liberal”. Funny how closely aligned liberals and Marxists are ideologically. Not only do they share the same ideologies but they rally behind the same ideologues

Funny how almost everything you say, including this nonsense, is completely untrue. One could almost imagine you do it deliberately.

 

[DaGeo]

Funny how almost everything you say, including this nonsense, is completely untrue. One could almost imagine you do it deliberately.

Funny how everything you say, including this nonsensical denial, is completely untrue. One could maintain you do it deliberately albeit inadvertently

 

[BMS]

Funny how almost everything you say, including this nonsense, is completely untrue. One could almost imagine you do it deliberately.

i bet you say that to all the boys.
You are the only one who can make sense.

 

[mikeT]

Funny how everything you say, including this nonsensical denial, is completely untrue.

There's nothing funny about you making stuff up about other people.

A sincere Christian would avoid such things.

 

[BMS]

There's nothing funny about you making stuff up about other people.

A sincere Christian would avoid such things.

There's nothing funny about you making stuff up about other people.
A sincere Christian wouldnt support pro-choice abortion.

 

[DeSanto]

True enough. It comes down to how elastic the demand for abortions is. I suspect that a great many can be averted by taking appropriate measures, but it will take increasingly more effort to get the numbers down further until the last few are inevitable. The question then is just how much effort and money is society prepared to put in to reduce the demand for abortion. That will determine what society feels is acceptable.

I don’t know if it is a matter of how much effort or money you throw at a problem.

I think it’s about changing public perceptions or perspectives.

If you think about it, money is part of the problem and has actually provided incentive to keep the abortion business thriving. Not the other way around.

I would say that most European countries are at that point now, where abortion is no longer much of an issue because it's under control and isn't causing any undue problems.

What do you mean by “under control?” How many abortions take place in European countries each year?

I don't think the US is clear on what an acceptable level of abortions is, with some saying none, and others saying as many as it takes. Perhaps the current furore is a good thing. Roe v Wade was never going to hold for ever.

I thought we were speaking about the ultimate goal of ending abortion, as an unacceptable practice. Not opining on what an acceptable level of abortion should be.

 

[Temujin]

I don’t know if it is a matter of how much effort or money you throw at a problem.

I think it’s about changing public perceptions or perspectives.

If you think about it, money is part of the problem and has actually provided incentive to keep the abortion business thriving. Not the other way around.

The alternative to abortion costs a lot of money. That needs to be matched, in kind of not in cash. That means free antenatal and maternity healthcare, parental leave, assisted nursery spaces. Changing public perception can cost money too.

What do you mean by “under control?” How many abortions take place in European countries each year?

. I don't know without looking it up, which you can do yourself. I do know that the numbers are insignificant, in the sense that no-one is particularly bothered by the numbers. Perhaps it's just a change in public perception.

I thought we were speaking about the ultimate goal of ending abortion, as an unacceptable practice. Not agreeing on acceptable levels of abortions.

. I don't waste time contemplating the unattainable. There's no chance of irradicating abortion altogether. What can be done is irradiate it for casual and avoidable reasons, such as poor contraception and financial concerns.

 

[DeSanto]

The alternative to abortion costs a lot of money.
That needs to be matched, in kind of not in cash. That means free antenatal and maternity healthcare, parental leave, assisted nursery spaces.

False premise. The alternative to abortion is giving birth, which costs nothing! Unless you believe our ancestors are the only ones that could afford a cave.

Changing public perception can cost money too.

Yes, but it would pay off quickly and is self-sustaining.

I don't know without looking it up, which you can do yourself. I do know that the numbers are insignificant, in the sense that no-one is particularly bothered by the numbers. Perhaps it's just a change in public perception.

Precisely!

I don't waste time contemplating the unattainable. There's no chance of irradicating abortion altogether.

I thought we excluded the life threatening scenarios and agreed, in those cases, we should at least try to save both the life of the mother and the child, if possible.

What can be done is irradiate it for casual and avoidable reasons, such as poor contraception and financial concerns.

This is the focus of the discussion, but you’ve added another false premise.

Contraception.

First of all, birth rates are already too low and secondly, contraception contains carcinogenic chemicals, which causes an even higher strain on the health care system & cost.

Might as well argue everyone should have a carton of cigarettes while you’re at it!

Bottom line, people have been having children, since the dawn of time. Only recently (in history) have these astronomical cost been attached.

Also, only recently (in history) has getting pregnant been perceived as some scary thing to avoid. If you think about it, there are many perceptions that have changed in recent times… which have actually put us in the situation… and caused us to THINK abortion is necessary. But in reality, we just need to change our perceptions.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

WRT that program, I don't know why some GOP governors opted out and neither do you! But where I live, there are tons of food programs outside of school for low income children living with food insecurity.

We had a retired Pastor in church serve as lunch room volunteer. His daughter was in charge of the school's lunch programs.
He watched all the free breakfast kids throw away unopened milk and most tossed their fruit.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Please forgive me for jumping in.

If you mean a society that decides to criminalise abortion completely then personally, I think it would be a terrible thing. I'm not sure that I could live in such a society, since to come to that view so many other tenets of humanity would have to have broken down. Access to abortion, at least in early pregnancy, is to me a mark of a civilised society. You are hypothesising a society that is abandoning civilised standards.

The atheeist crusades of the past century 200 million could NOT live after the firing squads.

You have no concept of civilized society.

If instead you mean a society where no-one feels the need for abortion, then sure, that would be wonderful. It sounds like the vision of communism where everyone gets what they need in life, and it's just as unattainable. I would love to live in a society with no hunger, disease or crime as well.

If you mean a society that collectively decides that abortion being the least bad option for certain situations is unacceptable, so invests time and money in providing an abundance of better options, so that those women who currently choose abortion feel able to choose something else, then yes, that would be a good thing. It's also a possible thing, but not in an atmosphere of division and polarised political antagonism. There would need to be agreement on what drives people to choose abortion and agreement on the options that should be offered to them. An analogy might be the problem of substance abuse. Making drug taking illegal doesn't solve the problem, and may well not even be part of a possible solution.

 

[DaGeo]

There's nothing funny about you making stuff up about other people.

A sincere Christian would avoid such things.

You’re right, it’s not really “funny” when people deny the reality of God who is their only hope for salvation.

On the other hand, you’re wrong. A sincere Christian is carful to call attention to that fact.

And third, why the false accusation? I didn’t “make stuff up about other people”. It’s not funny making stuff up about other people so you can falsely accuse them

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Pretty extreme.

What is extreme about banning infanticide? I see it as extreme to legally allow it.

If you don't think abortion is a nice word for infanticide, what do you think it is? What happens in an abortion?

Since Dobbs replaced RvW, Arizona is reinstating a law that bans abortion except to save the life of the mother with no exceptions for rape or incest, fatal fetal abnormality, or adverse affects on the health of the mother. And prison for the provider.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the law also allows for cases of rape or incest.

1) Why should an unborn child with a deformity be killed? Do we kill born people with deformities and abnormalities?

2) Why should an unborn child be killed becasue of "adverse effects on the health of the mother?" Do we get to kill born children who adversely affect the health of their mothers? Raising children is quite stressful--especially if the child is special needs. The psychological strain on a mother, if not a physiological effect can be great. Do we get to kill her children in such situations?

If a woman should not get pregnant due to medical issues, that is what contraception or surgery is for. Infanticide is not a solution to health concerns or abnormalities.

This law dates from 1864, almost 50 years before Arizona became a state.

And that was to do with abortion, how? This is to say, do you really care about some legal technicality? Let the lawyers quibble over legal technicalities. If this legal technicality was fixed and modernized, you would still object. Thus, lawyerly like quibbles over legal technicalities are irrelevant to this discussion.

This was decided by the State Supreme Court, which is entirely Republican, although 2 members voted against this.

I see. So your argument is that Republicans should not use the court system to advance their political agenda. The court systems should be a-political and should not legislate from the bench.

Why is it okay when the left uses the courts to advance their political agenda? Until the recent makeup of the SCOTUS, the left was running to the courts constantly to have unelected judges hand them on a silver platter what they could not get through the constitutional, democratic process. I mean--the left rejoiced to have the SCOTUS create the right to abortion out of thin air in 1972. The left rejoiced again in 2012 when the SCOTUS created gay marriage. Time and time again, the left used the courts to advanced their agenda. Did you complain?

The left is just angry becasue their ability to use the courts to advance their political ends is a bit hampered now with the makeup of the courts.

Here is the thing--I agree with you that the courts should be apolitical. The courts should not involve themselves in important social issues. Judges, liberal, or conservative, have no business butting in when it comes to social policy. That should be left to the democratic, political process. The courts should restrict themselves to the whole point for which they were created: to interpret law. If judges on either side of the political spectrum want to make law, let them resign from the court and run for office.

What is so hard for a judge saying "The constitution is silent on abortion, therefore we have nothing to say about it. This is a matter for the legeslature." "The constitution is silent on gay marriage, therefore, we have nothing to say about it. This is a matter for the legislature."

The attitude of any judge should be "When the Constitution is silent, we are silent. When the Constitution speaks, we speak."

This sort of extremism will only energize Arizona voters, esp women.

And that is just fine. You see, if the "right" to abortion came through the constitutional, democratic process, I would still object and fight against it, but------at least in such a case, such a "right" came fairly and squarely. This is why we have legislatures. This is why we have elections. This is the system our founders set up for the creation of law. They did not give us a court system to make law.

There is a petition circulating to put an abortion referendum on the ballot, and they apparently have enough signatures already, but will likely garner many more now.

Ruben Gallego just got a big boost for his Senate campaign.

Again, I object to abortion. I find it to be a moral abomination that societies that consider themselves "enlightened" and "civilized" should not tolerate. That said, if abortion supporters gain the "right" to abortion through the democratic, constitutional process, so be it. Pro-lifers, however, will continue to fight for legal recognition for the rights of the unborn.

 

[Temujin]

What is extreme about banning infanticide? I see it as extreme to legally allow it.

If you don't think abortion is a nice word for infanticide, what do you think it is? What happens in an abortion?

In an abortion, a pregnancy is ended. In infanticide, an infant is killed. Infanticide happens after birth, abortion happens before birth, usually many months before birth. Infanticide and abortion are not synonyms, despite your efforts to make them so.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the law also allows for cases of rape or incest.

Ok, though personally I don't think these circumstances make any difference to the argument.

1) Why should an unborn child with a deformity be killed? Do we kill born people with deformities and abnormalities?

Deformity wasn't mentioned. Fatal abnormality, or the impossibility of the foetus to survive ex utero. Why should we condemn a woman to endure a full term pregnancy and labour, with all the attendant risks, just to see her child die? She should at least have the option of ending the pregnancy early.

2) Why should an unborn child be killed becasue of "adverse effects on the health of the mother?" Do we get to kill born children who adversely affect the health of their mothers? Raising children is quite stressful--especially if the child is special needs. The psychological strain on a mother, if not a physiological effect can be great. Do we get to kill her children in such situations?

. No, we get to remove the child from her in those situations. We don't force people, I stress "people ", to undergo harmful or potentially harmful situations against their will. Wherever continuing the pregnancy is potentially more harmful than terminating it, any doctor mindful of the Hippocratic oath, will offer the option of a termination.

If a woman should not get pregnant due to medical issues, that is what contraception or surgery is for. Infanticide is not a solution to health concerns or abnormalities.

Medical issues may become apparent only once pregnant. Pregnancy involves many physiological changes to the mother, some of which can become life threatening.

 

[BMS]

In an abortion, a pregnancy is ended. In infanticide, an infant is killed. Infanticide happens after birth, abortion happens before birth, usually many months before birth. Infanticide and abortion are not synonyms, despite your efforts to make them so.
Ok, though personally I don't think these circumstances make any difference to the argument.
Deformity wasn't mentioned. Fatal abnormality, or the impossibility of the foetus to survive ex utero. Why should we condemn a woman to endure a full term pregnancy and labour, with all the attendant risks, just to see her child die? She should at least have the option of ending the pregnancy early.
. No, we get to remove the child from her in those situations. We don't force people, I stress "people ", to undergo harmful or potentially harmful situations against their will. Wherever continuing the pregnancy is potentially more harmful than terminating it, any doctor mindful of the Hippocratic oath, will offer the option of a termination.
Medical issues may become apparent only once pregnant. Pregnancy involves many physiological changes to the mother, some of which can become life threatening.

In an abortion a human life is killed. You just like to call it other things. That just shows us you arent open to reason.
You then go on to talk around this which is just you trying to convince yourself.
Had it not even occured to you that since your basic premise is not accepted, the rest of your argument is shifting sand?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

In an abortion, a pregnancy is ended.

And when a "pregnancy is ended" a child dies as a result of that "pregnancy ending."

When a woman is pregnant, is she said to be "with child" or "with fetus?"

In infanticide, an infant is killed. Infanticide happens after birth, abortion happens before birth, usually many months before birth. Infanticide and abortion are not synonyms, despite your efforts to make them so.

If you want to play semantics, fine. Abortion is a type of infanticide. It is just infanticide that happens prior to birth. That is what distinguishes it.

Ok, though personally I don't think these circumstances make any difference to the argument.

Very good! You just helped prove my point. Abortion supporters constantly bring up "But, but, but, the laws restricting abortion make no allowances for health of the mother or rape or incest..." as if------had the laws MADE those allowances, the abortion supporter would somehow be cool with restrictions on abortion.

So you are absolutely correct: the circumstances make no nevermind to the argument. I said what I said---so that we could remove that point of debate.

Deformity wasn't mentioned. Fatal abnormality, or the impossibility of the foetus to survive ex utero. Why should we condemn a woman to endure a full term pregnancy and labour, with all the attendant risks, just to see her child die? She should at least have the option of ending the pregnancy early.

Do we get to kill terminal born people? Once someone is actively dying, do we get to go into their room, stick a pillow over their face to smother them--since--what the heck--they are dying anyway. Might as well----hasten death and speed up the process!

And how many times have doctors been wrong when they said someone is going to die?

I mean---"Well your child won't survive long after birth, so--what the heck. I propose to stick a needle in your womb, burn your child with saline, then go in and cut up the remains and suck them out. Or if you prefer, I can go in to your womb with surgical instruments, puncture your child's skull, suck his/her brains out, then cut up the remaining parts and suck them out too. What option do you prefer? They both have their benefits and drawbacks."

This for some reason makes perfect sense to abortion supporters.

No, we get to remove the child from her in those situations. We don't force people, I stress "people ", to undergo harmful or potentially harmful situations against their will. Wherever continuing the pregnancy is potentially more harmful than terminating it, any doctor mindful of the Hippocratic oath, will offer the option of a termination.

The problem is that the doctor has TWO patients: the child and its mother. Why does it have to be an either/or? Why a false dichotomy? Why not treat BOTH?

Medical issues may become apparent only once pregnant. Pregnancy involves many physiological changes to the mother, some of which can become life threatening.

If the pregnancy itself becomes life threatening, that is one thing. Remember--the discussion is abortion on demand.