Jump to content

smltwnrckr

Members
  • Content Count

    7,614
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About smltwnrckr

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 01/15/1983

Profile Information

  • Team
    San Jose State
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The city of mercy

Recent Profile Visitors

9,286 profile views
  1. Fresno is to MWC cities what SJSU is to MWC football.
  2. The problem is that the determination of the "health of the mother" in this scenario is taken out of the hands of the mother, her family and her physician and put into the hands of some sort of bureaucratic process that is overseen most likely by a panel or committee. They decide if the health of the mother is sufficiently at risk to allow an abortion - which, after certain point, is probably just inducing labor and forcing a delivery. Even though it was mocked, I thought the idea of "death panels" when the ACA was being debated was a real concern, because that's what happens when the government decides what procedures can or can't be done at a given moment. I don't think abortion panels are a good thing either. And those actually do exist, today, in the USandA - even in states with very liberal abortion laws. In the other instance where you would have the same kind of process is in the instance of fetal conditions that the baby would not survive. Who would decide what threshold of probability has to be crossed before the family can decide if the pregnancy is doomed? Or what condition is severe enough? IMO, it is just as extreme a position to force a woman to carry a fetus to full term and to deliver knowing that baby will suffer and die in her arms as it is to allow her to choose the time and nature of its death and consider her own health in the decision. The pro life side often thinks it's armed with the ultimate inconvenient truth of a fetal heartbeat in these discussions, but the fact is that both sides have a lot of accounting to do in the squishy middle of an issue they claim is completely black-and-white. There's not an easy solution, but I don't think what is going on right now in America is anywhere close to where the solution lies.
  3. I appreciate the honesty in your post. There are a lot of people who go through what you went through, and in many cases it doesn't turn out as well for them as it did for you. I think that it is unfortunate that it often takes an experience like yours, one where you get a taste of the weight of these kinds of decisions, to have empathy for the people who actually face them. It's easy to say what you would do in the abstract. When you are in a position to actually consider the unthinkable, because it is a legitimate and probable outcome, it makes those pronouncements of what lies in the hearts of others facing the same choices all the more complicated. That is not a criticism of you - that seems to be a fact of the human experience. I'm glad you came out of it with empathy for others in a similar situation, even if you disagree with their choices. A question that I have, be it for you or for anyone else, is this - How do you set up a system that keeps the range of necessary choices open for people in your position (or those who are in even tougher, if similar, positions), and that reflects the empathy that even some of the abortion hardliners on here seem to say we should have for the people in those positions, while at the same time taking those choices away from the women and families for whom they don't have such empathy? How do we allow people like yourself to make choices while removing abortion as a choice for people who want to use it as birth control or as a matter of "convenience?" Anyone who actually distrusts the government and who understands the ways in which bureaucracies dehumanize people through procedural approaches to moral questions, like we see with the EPA for instance, or more relevant to this issue the way we see these decisions can be made in Catholic hospitals, would take pause - or I hope they would.
  4. Congrats, man. When you're in the Valley again I'll buy you a congratulatory shot and Bud Light at Lagorio's. We won't tell them you're a lawyer, though.
  5. I think we did, too. I'm just not in the mood to continue this conversation. And I don't want to post a list of fetal conditions because I am not interested in turning this into a debate over which conditions constitute a valid one that makes it OK for termination. I don't feel it's my place to make that determination... that's kinda the whole point. I, personally, have not specifically faced a fetal condition, per se. I however have met some people in recent months who have. It's a drag.
  6. Honestly, I've thought about this more today than I planned on it and am going to end the conversation. If you want to know why, honestly, in good faith, feel free to PM me and ask. I'll tell you. Otherwise you have a nice day too. I encourage you to read the study about catholic hospitals. It's small, but stark. I'm ending this conversation before I post something that I'll regret.
  7. I did look up the other study. I referenced it earlier. It's clear you don't give a shit about a lot of things. Have a nice day.
  8. It's in there. It's quite a bit before 20 weeks and waaaay before viability. You're arguing about something I'm not denying. And again assuming my stance on abortion in general.
  9. Abortions after 20 weeks are rare in general. I'm saying that your clarity on the matter is misguided. You should have a little more empathy for people who find themselves in that position making touch chocies. That's all.
  10. Are there any that would change your mind?
  11. And their definition of later-timed abortions are.... how many weeks?
  12. Yes, it is obviously rare. But our OB has seen it a couple times.
×