Va OK's bill to likely close most abortion clinics

[OakRidgeStars]

Begin the left's references to coat hangers or something in 3...2...1...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110224/D9LJEB8G0.html

[Kreutz]

Begin the left's references to coat hangers or something in 3...2...1...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110224/D9LJEB8G0.html

Doesn't this violate the "personal liberty" I hear so much about on here?

[TheGodfather]

Begin the left's references to coat hangers or something in 3...2...1...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110224/D9LJEB8G0.html

Doesn't this violate the "personal liberty" I hear so much about on here?

Since when is granting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to babies a violation?

[jaywade]

Begin the left's references to coat hangers or something in 3...2...1...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110224/D9LJEB8G0.html

Doesn't this violate the "personal liberty" I hear so much about on here?

what about the child's liberty or life?

[jim100]

AMEN! finally they are going to shut down.

[gunderwood]

Begin the left's references to coat hangers or something in 3...2...1...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110224/D9LJEB8G0.html

Doesn't this violate the "personal liberty" I hear so much about on here?

It is an important distinction society must make as to what constitutes a human being and what doesn't. When are those rights acknowledge? i.e. when do you become a legal human being subject to the protection of law...also, when do you loose it.

Once legally determined to be a human being and subject to the protection of law, personal liberty is restricted just like everyone else. You can't legally kill me and yes, that is a restriction of your liberty, but that is why we created governments; to restrict liberties in certain and very limited situations. Life > Liberty > Pursuit of Happiness.

What we dislike around here is when government oversteps its bounds and restricts liberty more than the powers we have given them. For example, we explicitly forbade them (all branches) from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, but we only restricted Congress from creating a law that limits the free exercise of speech. The local communities and states, at least from the 1st Amendment, are free to enact limitations, but Congress can not make any law (nor can any agent of Congress).

The real question here is why or why not is the suggested change a good definition or a bad one.

[gunderwood]

As for the real question in this thread, here is one perspective I have on it.

Evaluating the risk for society, we have the following for both the really young and really old.

1. Our definition of a life/human being is right.

or

2. Our definition of a life/human being is wrong.

You may argue that we have a partially correct definition, but if our definition is even the slightest bit wrong we will be unduly restricting liberty or worse still, be guilty of murder in this case. With limited and imperfect knowledge we can not get away from that problem (and we may never), so I recommend society error on the side of caution...i.e. commit the least transgression possible in the absence of knowledge. We already have a philosophy which gives us a way to evaluate which potential transgression is the least. Life > Liberty > Pursuit of Happiness.

To preserve life society very often restricts both liberty and happiness. To preserve liberty, society does restrict happiness. However, our philosophy as American's says that we should never restrict life for liberty or happiness, nor liberty for happiness. Hence, the greater than signs in my shorthand: Life > Liberty > Pursuit of Happiness. As a side note, remember that government can not provide these for you, but as a society we create laws which protect your access to them and punish those who violate the law.

Thus, we are left with the following options:

1. We define something which is a life as a life...no harm done; we made the right call and created the right laws.

2. We define something which is not a life as a life...society is now guilty of unduly restricting liberty.

3. We define something which is a life as not a life...society is now guilty of permitting murder.

4. We define something which is not a life as not a life...no harm done.

There are no other options and 2 > 3 as far as the guilt of a society is concerned. Now the question is, what methods do we have for determining what life is? Science is the obvious one and likely that which has the least contention, but philosophy and religion are also potential standards for defining life.

Science has yet to accurately define life. We have people who we deem are dead which return to life and we have people who have all the vitals, but no life. This is particularly true during pregnancy. We know when certain features become apparent, but resemblance of a human being is not life, that much we know. Simply put, science has not yet unlocked the mystery of when life actually begins (or ends) for a human being, we know it when we see it, but have a really hard time with the gray areas. In the absence of knowledge, we should choose #2 over #3 so if we are wrong we have committed the least transgression.

Of course, other standards to define life such as the Bible are very clear that it begins at conception. English translations loose a lot of the meaning, but the original languages are not so vague. From this perspective, #1 is the only option.

Food for thought.

[frankD]

AMEN! finally they are going to shut down.

+1

[totes6]

Thus, we are left with the following options:

1. We define something which is a life as a life...no harm done; we made the right call and created the right laws.

2. We define something which is a life as not a life...society is now guilty of permitting murder.

3. We define something which is not a life as a life...society is now guilty of unduly restricting liberty.

4. We define something which is not a life as not a life...no harm done.

There are no other options and 2 > 3 as far as the guilt of a society is concerned.


In the absence of knowledge, we should choose #3 over #2 so if we are wrong we have committed the least transgression.

Yes I have cut a lot out of Gunderwood's post, I was trying to hit the main points and keep it as short as possible. So if I cut something critical out, I am sorry and please do let me know.
I am just trying to make sure I understand you correctly, that you are saying allowing "murder" is going to cause a greater guilt if we are wrong than if we restrict "liberty" if we are wrong correct. The way I read your last section it seemed you were stating we should allow the abortions, because if we are wrong it would be the least transgression.


Now back to the opening topic, the clinics themselves. My understanding of the bill (is definitely not perfect) was to bring the safety standards of the clinics more in line with hospitals in Virginia. Why is this an issue? Are hospitals safer for this kind of medical treatment? I don't personally have the answers to these questions. I admit that personally I felt that if I played with fire chances are that I will get burned eventually and have to live with those consequences. So I never really saw abortion as a solution personally and never really researched it or its safety standards at different locations. Hence the reason I do not have the answers for the above questions.

[Yarddawg]

IMHO, abortion is not an acceptable means of birth control. Nor is pregnancy a sexually transmitted disease that needs to be cured by abortion.

My wife and I have two children. Before either of them was born, they would react to our voices. These were both precious lives that were subject to the same protections as anyone else.

The referenced article states

it would put an undue burden on poor women and those in rural areas, where clinics likely would close.

I say GOOD! Maybe these people will think prior to indulging in a moment of pleasure that potentially will have lasting effects on not only their lives, but on the unborn lives as well!

I will address the welfare aspect as well before someone else does. Unless a person is physically unable to work in any capacity, I am opposed to welfare. If the parent is unable to adequately care for the child, the child should be put up for adoption.

[gunderwood]

Thus, we are left with the following options:

1. We define something which is a life as a life...no harm done; we made the right call and created the right laws.

2. We define something which is a life as not a life...society is now guilty of permitting murder.

3. We define something which is not a life as a life...society is now guilty of unduly restricting liberty.

4. We define something which is not a life as not a life...no harm done.

There are no other options and 2 > 3 as far as the guilt of a society is concerned.


In the absence of knowledge, we should choose #3 over #2 so if we are wrong we have committed the least transgression.

Yes I have cut a lot out of Gunderwood's post, I was trying to hit the main points and keep it as short as possible. So if I cut something critical out, I am sorry and please do let me know.
I am just trying to make sure I understand you correctly, that you are saying allowing "murder" is going to cause a greater guilt if we are wrong than if we restrict "liberty" if we are wrong correct. The way I read your last section it seemed you were stating we should allow the abortions, because if we are wrong it would be the least transgression.

Opps, that was a typo. The transgression of murder is greater than unduly restricting liberty, thus we should choose to restrict liberty in the absence of knowledge which is option 3, not 2. I simply transposed them in that sentence. Sorry.

Any chance a mod can fix that?

[OakRidgeStars]

Thus, we are left with the following options:

1. We define something which is a life as a life...no harm done; we made the right call and created the right laws.

2. We define something which is not a life as a life...society is now guilty of unduly restricting liberty.

3. We define something which is a life as not a life...society is now guilty of permitting murder.

4. We define something which is not a life as not a life...no harm done.

There are no other options and 2 > 3 as far as the guilt of a society is concerned.


In the absence of knowledge, we should choose #2 over #3 so if we are wrong we have committed the least transgression.

Yes I have cut a lot out of Gunderwood's post, I was trying to hit the main points and keep it as short as possible. So if I cut something critical out, I am sorry and please do let me know.
I am just trying to make sure I understand you correctly, that you are saying allowing "murder" is going to cause a greater guilt if we are wrong than if we restrict "liberty" if we are wrong correct. The way I read your last section it seemed you were stating we should allow the abortions, because if we are wrong it would be the least transgression.

Opps, that was a typo. The transgression of murder is greater than unduly restricting liberty, thus we should choose to restrict liberty in the absence of knowledge which is option 3, not 2. I simply transposed them in that sentence. Sorry.

Any chance a mod can fix that?

[Kreutz]

Now back to the opening topic, the clinics themselves. My understanding of the bill (is definitely not perfect) was to bring the safety standards of the clinics more in line with hospitals in Virginia. Why is this an issue? Are hospitals safer for this kind of medical treatment? I don't personally have the answers to these questions.

The clinics are as safe as hospitals, but the cost of complying will drive many clinics out of business; which was the intended point, hence the controversy.

[Kreutz]

Begin the left's references to coat hangers or something in 3...2...1...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110224/D9LJEB8G0.html

Doesn't this violate the "personal liberty" I hear so much about on here?

what about the child's liberty or life?

By your logic a pregnant woman having a cigarette should be convicted of child abuse.

IMO abortion should not be regulated at all, like sex between consenting adults its a personal private matter. Governments should stay out of fit.

[Reverenddel]

Not even talking to the "Right/Wrong" argument... let's talk about "regulation":

So if you feel comfortable having a surgical procedure done that can in fact cause massive bleeding, and it isn't even up to snuff to the level of a DENTIST office in safety measures, that's okay?

Hmmmm, Dunno about that...

Seems to me that ALL medical facilities have an obligation to meet a standard for health, and safety. Why should a planned parenthood facility be exempt?

I'm still not sure why underage girls can have a surgical procedure without parental consent, but they cannot get their ears pierced without a parent or guardian.

That whole "It's their Right!" thing? Naaaahhh, if they can restrict every other measure, BUT that one? Seems that's the outlier, not the rule.

[gunderwood]

IMO abortion should not be regulated at all, like sex between consenting adults its a personal private matter. Governments should stay out of fit.

That whole argument is and always has been based on the assumption that you are only dealing with one person in an abortion. Of course the absurdity of it is that your attempting to make the argument about something which it is not by assuming away the central question. Is or is not a fetus a human being and at what point. If it is not a human being than it is a private decision, if it is, than the other human being deserves the protection of the law, just like the rest of us.

Goes good on signs and chants, but fails miserably at basic logic.

[Kreutz]

Of course the absurdity of it is that your attempting to make the argument about something which it is not by assuming away the central question.

Nope, this backdoor ban on abortions is the issue. This is about a bill based in the Virginia state government isn't it?

I simply stated my own opinion abortion should be unregulated-and this is a government attempt at regulation.

[Kreutz]

Not even talking to the "Right/Wrong" argument... let's talk about "regulation":

So if you feel comfortable having a surgical procedure done that can in fact cause massive bleeding, and it isn't even up to snuff to the level of a DENTIST office in safety measures, that's okay?

Hmmmm, Dunno about that...

Seems to me that ALL medical facilities have an obligation to meet a standard for health, and safety. Why should a planned parenthood facility be exempt?

Clinics do have meet standards-this is requiring them to meet standards that vastly exceed their scope of care.

Sometimes for work I have to bill abortions, some are therapeutic (maternal risk of mortality or the fetus has a birth defect of varying severity) others are purely elective.

I've never seen a problem, they're done transvaginally and no more risky than a woman getting say, a hysteroscopic polypectoym done.

ALL procedures carry a risk of danger-I've seen people have serious complications from a "routine" circumcision or a tooth extraction.

I actually drink my morning tea while reading operative reports and seeing the pictures from these things, so I am jaded.

[gunderwood]

Of course the absurdity of it is that your attempting to make the argument about something which it is not by assuming away the central question.

Nope, this backdoor back on abortions is the issue. This is about a bill based in the Virginia state government isn't it?

I simply stated my own opinion abortion should be unregulated-and this is a government attempt at regulation.

Yes, I realize that is your opinion. I was just pointing out it assumes away the central question of abortion which is if it is simply a transaction of one person or two. If it is a one person transaction, the government should not be involved. However, if it is two, then there should be regulation to prohibit the unethical and immoral treatment of the other party.

The first issue is, "Do they have the power to do it?" It appears so (regardless if it passes or not). The states regulate this sort of thing all the time. Yes, it is a back door attempt, but that in of itself does not make it right nor wrong.

The second issue, especially since it is a back door attempt, is, "Should they push this through on social ethical grounds?" That is a question for VA residents and their representatives to decide based on how society views the procedure. There should not be regulation on a one party procedure, but on a two party procedure where one party is ethically harmed then that is exactly the roll of government and why we instituted it.

The central issue of if this regulation, which is determining its validity or not, is still what position society is willing to take on the procedure...one person or two. IMHO, since we don't know for sure, we should error on the side of caution. Classic risk management.

Why would you suggest we error on the side of greater transgression if societies position is wrong?

[zephyp]

Its a child not a choice.

@Kreutz - ever wondered if your parents had decided to abort you?

IMHO abortion should be legal only in those cases where rape or incest are involved.