Ergill wrote:This is just wrong. It doesn’t loosen restrictions on all abortion—only on the third term.
Seeing as how women have a relatively unrestricted right to abortion through term one and term two, the contentious term is that of the third term. You can’t really expand rights where rights are unrestricted (unless you want to shift the conversation to speak of the right as an entitlement which must be provided rather than allowed), so we’re obviously not speaking of expanding rights in terms one and two.
The point of “ANY” is not to say “OMG, this legislation allows for abortions after a few weeks!”, but to indicate the territory that is being expanded into
We cannot establish a plenary right to abort without, by logical necessity, also extending that right into the third trimester. Being able to abort at “any” time for reasons that do not fall under the doctrine of double effect, amount to having a right to murder, under the law.
Ergill wrote:when I claimed that women got abortions in the third term for substantive reasons, you tried to marshal statistics to contradict that. They didn’t.
I offered statistics that are available. The statistics I offered do not establish closure on the question of “why,” but they are probative and establish a presumption that “Yes!” there are elective abortions occurring at later stages of pregnancy.
You claim that women get abortions in the third term for substantive reasons. We’ll visit the notion of “substantive” in a moment, but let’s bracket that for now and note that
(a) if even one woman does not get an abortion in the third trimester for a substantive reason, and
(b) if we are indeed talking about a “person” in the later stage of pregnancy (and if we’re NOT, then the argument of Peter Singer in favor of infanticide deserve our consideration as we push our debate into weeks of development after
(c) were are talking about a legal right to murder which has been exercised under United States law.
And that is unacceptable.
My primary concern is that we cannot grant a legal right to kill children, even if that right would (allegedly) never be exercised. Frequency does not matter when it comes to the matter of principle, so your protestations are moot.
Ergill wrote:These are, again, exceedingly invasive, expensive procedures. If you think there are women out there spending 10,000 to 20,000 dollars on a whim, you're wrong:
Are any of these cases covered under insurance? Are any of these procedures performed for women of means? Might a person who considers the cost of raising a child (hundreds of thousands of dollars), consider a cost of $10,000 to $20,000 a relative bargain?
The key word here is “whim,” which brings us back to the question of “substantive” which we must now consider. In such case as we are speaking of a healthy human person, the only justifiable reason to kill that person is to do so as an unintentional side-effect of saving the life of one or more other persons. If we are speaking of an unhealthy person, we’re now going down the rabbit hole. Are we speaking of people with Down Syndrome, cleft palate, autism?
With regard to Down Syndrome, people like Frank Stephens have argued that they would (pretty please) like to live and not be terminated in the womb, that they are human beings, and that they have lives that a worth living.
What say you Sanchez? May a mother end Frank’s life in the womb in the third term because she learns he has Down Syndrome? Is that a “substantive” reason for you?
And if so, why may we not simply shoot kids with Down Syndrome in the face or euthanize them at age four when they impinge on the “mental health” of their parents?
By my lights, “substantive” only refers to cases where there is a real (and not just possible) overwhelming threat to the life of the mother and cases of deformity so monstrous that the fetus has no significant chance of life at all post delivery. That’s my definition. And under that definition, do women ever get an abortion on a “whim” (i.e., an elective procedure not needed to save the life of the mother or which is more humane in not causing greater pain and suffering to a fetus which will certainly die after delivery)?
The answer does not really matter, because it shouldn’t be written into the law a “right” to begin with, but consider this testimony from various interviews.
Below is a cut-and-paste from http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/09/ ... -done.html
secularprolifeblog wrote:In a 2013 interview for The Hairpin, Dr. Robinson explained the women who come to her because they hadn't realized earlier that they were pregnant:
They think they just got pregnant. They have no idea they’re in their 24th week. So they make an appointment for an abortion, and it takes a few weeks, and they have their ultrasound and find out that they’re at 27 weeks, which is too far for an abortion anywhere. So then what happens? They either give up or have a baby, or they go on the Internet and they find us.
Also in 2013, Dr. Sella was interviewed by The Irish Times, which reported:
The women Sella treats fall into two categories: those who discover foetal abnormalities; and those with healthy, viable babies whose maternal circumstances mean they could not cope with the baby.
In 2015, a Colorado-based paper called The Daily Camera interviewed Dr. Hern:
He doesn't share his clinic's statistics and rarely speaks of individual cases, but Hern has said he also performs late abortions for women who are not facing any grave medical outcome.
This information doesn't indicate what proportion of third trimester abortions are for non-medical reasons. In general, at later gestations a higher proportion of abortions are done for medical reasons.
Even so, many people insist no one ever gets an elective (read: non-medical) abortion as late as the third trimester. The doctors providing third trimester abortions would disagree.
There you go. Three interviews. Three quotations. Three doctors. All affirm that non-medically necessary third-term abortions DO occur. Tell me again how it never happens.
Ergill wrote:If two more doctor certifications will keep the barbarians at the gates without terrible consequences of its own, make that case. If you think the mental health qualification isn't clear enough to capture the exceptions they intend, make that case. I don’t think this should entail accusing Tran and Northam or whomever of promoting infanticide or genocide or whatever.
I’ve already made the case, so now it is up to you to refute it. Don’t play coy, as if the arguments aren’t already on the table.
A person’s mental instability is NOT grounds to kill a person. If mom is having post-partum depression, we don’t allow for infanticide. When toddlers drive parents insane we don’t allow for killing.
The mental health qualification allowing for killing what is a person is already beyond the pale. We’re already there.
It is up to you to tell me that I am wrong in my repeated assertion that personhood begins at some point after conception, but also at some point before birth.
Legislation, therefore, that allows for termination at ANY point of pregnancy on a warrant as thin a “mental health” is legalized murder.
As I have repeatedly asserted, what concerns me is NOT the misspeaking of Tran or Northam, but rather what the bill itself contains, including “clarifications” which establish that my objections are indeed active in this case.
Ergill wrote:We already live in that world. As shitty as he was at contextualizing it, the case Northam was talking about was a baby born non-viable. The infant is actually delivered, but isn’t expected to survive.
This is that Northam said. I will quote with emphasis added from the YouTube record of the interview which I posted upthread.
Governor Northam wrote:it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable so in this particular example if a mother is in labor I can tell you exactly what would happen
That there “may” be medical deformities in cases means that there may NOT be medical deformities in these cases. That the fetus “may” be non-viable in these cases means that the fetus may be viable. Northam does not specify an actual counter-factual particular (i.e., a narrow set of circumstances) when he clarifies “exactly what would happen” in the case of a third-term abortion. Tran was being cross-examined about a week 40 abortion, so if Northam is defending anything in particular, it is a week 40 abortion. The only particular example we have is that of a dilating mother in week 40.
Northam’s response only tells us that what would exactly happen in a week 40 abortion for a baby that may or may not have severe deformities or may or may not be viable. In short, he is speaking of a world in which a healthy child without severe deformity (and what severe deformity would warrant the killing of a person my eugenically dubious friends?)
Do you want to say that Northam intended to say something else? OK, but don’t tell me that he was specifically referring to a restricted set of cases there, because he wasn’t. He was tacking on “may” as a value-added consideration in some cases which are part of the general class which would presumably have a strong warrant, but he was defending the whole class.
Also, answer the damned question. There is no legal right to infanticide. I was speaking of a world where there was (e.g., on grounds such as mental health of the mother and other warrants for killing a healthy “birthus” such as provided by Dr. Singer). What would we make of this? Would we crow that infanticide is very rare compared traditional abortion options? Moreover, let’s suppose that the post-40 week procedure were very costly and involved.
Ergill wrote:Ummm, I literally said that most Americans don’t support third-term abortion.
And this literally means that this desperate patchwork of state legislation to do an end run around the perceived collapse of the Roe hegemony is indeed “radical” when compared to public opinion.
Ergill wrote:Your Gallup provides interesting context though. 13% of people say that third term abortions shouldn’t be legal flatly, but 75% say they should be legal when the woman’s life is in danger,
In this case, 75% of people are right. Tran’s legislation (not Northam’s or Tran’s misspeaking about it) involves legalization in cases where there is NO threat to the mother’s life.
Ergill wrote:52% when the child is the product of rape or incest,
In this case, 52% of people are wrong. If we have another person in the equation, however tragic the circumstances of their parentage, then we must consider their rights as human beings.
Ergill wrote:48% when the child would be born with a life-threatening illness,
This is a minority and A LOT depends on what is meant by “life-threatening.” There are many life-threatening illnesses which people deal with in leading long, productive, and healthy lives.
Ergill wrote:35% when the child was mentally disabled, 29% when the child has Downs
These people are in the minority and they are wrong.
Ergill wrote:and 20% for any reason.
These people are not just wrong, but hold a monstrous opinion about the sanctity of human life.
Ergill wrote:The last is pretty weird next to the first, as if the very mention of reasons provides a bump. This leads to a common point about polls generally and these polls in particular. On the one hand, answers are sensitive to questions. It’s been shown that there are even some phrasings that can cause contradictory results. On the other hand, these answers suggest that people take third-term abortions very seriously, but are aware of them as a rare necessity with varyingly defensible reasons.
So, do you want to have your cake and eat it too? Do you want stand on this study? Do you wish to repudiate it?
Again, when do you respect the rights of children to live? At what point do you say “No further!” with regard to how we may treat or dispose of a living human organism? At what point does the child have a clear and compelling right to life which must be taken into consideration as a matter of law? Because if you draw that line anywhere before delivery, you must oppose this legislation. And if you don’t, you really need to explain what is substantially different about a baby 5 hours before birth and 5 hours after delivery, such that only the latter has human rights.
Ergill wrote:I'm for greater restrictions after 20 weeks, increasing after 28.
Answer the question. When are we dealing with a little person with rights? When do we regulate not on grounds that only speak to the needs and wants of mothers, but begin to regulate on grounds of the right of children to live?
Does personhood, in your estimation, unambiguously begin before or after delivery? And why?
Ergill wrote:I’ve looked her up, but I’m not seeing what part of her testimony is relevant to this law and what I said above.
She describes instances of infanticide. She describes instances of on-demand (elective) abortions in the third-term. In short, her narrative includes circumstances that include “whimsy” in the sense of procedures that were not medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
Ergill wrote:This is really inconvenient. Or convenient, depending on how you squint. You’ve already cited an anti-abortion source and I didn’t attack it for bias.
No, but you’ve pissed and moaned about apples and oranges and this and that. There are so many nits to pick, aren’t there? It is almost impossible to find statistics from mutually acceptable sources on an essentially contested, deeply polarizing issue. It is quite difficult to collect statistical data directly, because people who are in the industry have a paycheck and an ideology to protect. They have a clear motivation to fudge (“We’ll call this a ‘medical’ reason”
), obscure (“Let’s talk about the mother’s reason vaguely here under such and such a heading”
), and withhold (“We don’t need to report this. It’s not anyone else’s business”
). And it is always possible to nitpick a survey.
Ergill wrote:You oppose what Northam accidentally said,
Ergill wrote: support his right to clarify his meaning,
Ergill wrote:What did you think his actual meaning was?
In that context, I took his meaning to be that of general support
of the proposed legislation. In that interview, he did speak in favor of the decision properly being that of the people immediately involved in the procedure (e.g., the mother and the doctor). He states,
Northam wrote:We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the the mothers and their providers.
That is, his position is that it is no one else’s business. This sort of position would not be acceptable in such case as “a discussion ensuing” as to whether to kill a four-year-old child (e.g., “Terminating the life of your four-year-old is a painful, private, and costly decision with delicate medical procedural concerns, so everyone else should butt out of it!”
), so it is quite baffling that Northam thinks that it is binding here. Also, he wants men to stay out of it, because apparently they’re bad and it’s none of their business. This is enough for me to tell Northam to get stuffed.
No, I want the decision to be made under the rule of law and not at the election of private parties hermetically sealed from the regulations of society for a scruple about privacy and cost and delicacy, etc.
He also takes it to be the case that in stating, that opposition was “blown out of proportion” that he takes the legislation to be close the to status quo which he supports.
Ergill wrote:Take note that he wasn’t voicing support for the bill.
He was offering support for Tran (this was blown out of proportion!), for the exclusive right of women and doctors to independently decide (stay out of it you male law makers!), and for the sort of thing he thought was implied by the legislation (I can tell you exactly what would happen). And I take this to be general support of the legislation.
I think he was acting in good faith. I think he was trying to support his party and representative Tran as best he could.
Ergill wrote: He said he preferred that multiple doctors approve the procedure.
Yes, he did. But he did not say whether his preference should have the force of law. He did not say that this was a reason that he didn’t support the legislation. Rather, he said,
Governor Northam wrote: Well I think it's always good to get a second opinion and for at least two providers to be involved in that decision
He did NOT say that he opposed the legislation for that reason, but rather that he would prefer this be the case.
What matters most, however, is whether this bill and bills like it should be passed. Supposing I were wrong about Northam’s “general support” for the legislation, my opposition to the Bill (as clarified) would still stand.
Ergill wrote: He was just shittily clarifying what would happen if complications happened at the point of birth. Your trying to paint this as some monolithic conspiracy by “the DNC” with
Northam getting scapegoated for carrying their water is nonsense on every front.
Was this a “monolithic conspiracy”? Would the DNC do such a thing? Would WikiLeaks reveal to us that on behalf of Hillary Clinton the DNC would purposely rig the process against Sanders? No one ever said that what WikiLeaks published was false.
They just complained that it was unfair that the Russians allegedly had something to do with disclosing the inconvenient truth. Are you saying that the DNC hasn’t already been caught in recent conspiracies? Are you implying that I am the one off my nut for suggesting that politics is dirty, underhanded, and deceitful?
Let me put it this way. If it turned out that the picture was sent to Big League Politics by a DNC operative it would not surprise me in the least, because changing the tune from abortion to racism is to change the tune to a debate they can win (“Racism is bad! Don’t listen to racist Northam! He must resign! We are sooooo offended!).
On the other hand, there is that old adage that one should never let a crisis go to waste. No conspiracy needed. Tran’s testimony went viral. Northam went on the radio and attempted to put out the fire, but accidentally spread the fire. Some right wing website sensed weakness and decided to see if they could get dirt on Northam. This is equally plausible.
What follow in either case is the same. Everyone disavows Northam. The media demands he resign. Republicans demand he resign. His own party demands he resign. And with that the tune is changed. We’re no longer talking about abortion, but racism and it is easy to disavow racism.
What is fucking hilarious, however, is how far this has spilled out of control. The #metoo of Lt. Governor Fairfax. The “Oops, I did blackface too!” of the Attorney General Herring.
Ergill wrote:Personhood isn’t a firewall at any point right now.
It is in the case of infanticide. If a 3-week old baby is killed, that’s homicide.
The question is “Why isn’t it a firewall?” The only circumstance where it would not properly be a firewall would be in such case as one maintains that the unborn at no stage of pregnancy are “babies.”
This is a massive problem. Tran’s legislation only makes things worse (in practice) by making it easier to run roughshod over the question of personhood.
Ergill wrote:At this point, it’s philosophy, not law. As for viability, even in the unmodified VA law, it’s a very limited firewall for third-term abortions, mainly protecting “the product of the abortion” if the infant is viable. Anti-abortion activists are suddenly science uber-optimists
Science gets gamed by both sides.
Ultimately, however, the question is not simply scientific, but rather how philosophical judgment informed by science should be used to make policy. Science doesn’t tell you what you should do, just what is nomologically possible.
Ergill wrote:On the contrary, “genocide” begs the question with gusto.
Wikipedia wrote:Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word γένος ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing"). The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".
Does abortion in New York destroy the black population there in whole or in part? Well, if you’re more likely to be aborted than to be birthed, what do you think that the answer is?
So, condition one is met. Abortion is destroying a racial group in substantive part.
Our next condition is that of intentionality. Is this policy intentional? Do pro-choicers commonly advocate for a right to abort on grounds of economics? Yes. It is commonly argued that we must allow poor women the right to abort to keep families from being trapped in poverty.
Seeing as how people feel comfortable calling policies “racist” when they impact the poor (and thereby disproportionately people of color), by extension, there is justification in calling for decreasing number of the poor via a medical procedure that kills a growing human organism “racist.”
Begging the question or finally talking about the elephant in the middle of the room. That we are not even talking about this fact suggests an unconscionable sin of omission, regardless of how we characterize this trend.
Ergill wrote:The majority of abortions are early in pregnancy, much closer to the clump of cells you’ve already let slide. You can’t mean them unless you’re using third-term abortions as a wedge to creep the concept.
If you’re more likely to be aborted than to be born as a black baby, that isn’t necessarily murder, but it is travesty. And to the extent that these policies are justified on curbing population among the poor and to the extent that purposefully impacting the poor can be said to be racist, this policy (“Let’s lower the number of poor people with abortion!”) can be said to be genocidal.
Ergill wrote:If you mean black New Yorkers, no. Their birth rate is 12.1 per 1,000 while the national is 12.4:
Oh, so it isn’t a concern so long as these policies are keeping “negroes in their place”? How fucking magnanimous of you! So long as the black population is ever so slightly behind the live births of the rest of the population and the African American constricts in size, everything is fine. But it isn’t. The African American population should be growing.
It should not be standing still. It should not be shrinking. It should be growing in New York.
Where is the “safe, rare, and legal” in this example? If you’re more likely to be aborted than born, this is NOT rare.
And if this policy is designed/intended to keep populations of “underserved communities” in check (i.e., brown people), then this genocidal.
Ergill wrote:As for sex-selective abortions, I haven’t read much on the subject
In that case, you need to read up on it. There are tens of millions of missing women around the world. Where this practice is present in societies where female children are considered a cost rather than a benefit (e.g., the economic weight of dowry), the gender ratio in the population is out of what and gang rapes have increased dramatically.
This is “gendercide” and feminists are conspicuously silent on the issue.
Ergill wrote: and I’m not clear how they bear on this VA law,
Simple. If you allow for a thin provision of concern for “mental health of the mother” to be a determining factor assessed by ONE attending physician, it is much easier to mask what is truly an elective choice as a medical reason. One such elective choice is gender selection. Another is to abort the genetically imperfect child because it would be inconvenient or a disappointment.