More Sleaze in Trump Orbit

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: More Sleaze in Trump Orbit

Postby KeithE » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:00 pm

Rvaughn wrote:Keith, I said I was not inclined to look further into this, but I had the following information already saved elsewhere. So I didn’t have to spend much time on it and have decided to post it. The first thing I mention may be part of William’s basis for his charge against Democrats.

Back in February of this year, a sufficient number of U.S. Senate Democrats (44, including at least 6 Democratic presidential candidates, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren) blocked S.311 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Part of the text of the bill states, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion…(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws. (2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”

This next item is from doctors writing in what claims to be a leading international journal of medical ethics and an official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics. I have no idea of the political persuasion of the authors, but I think they are not Americans, so typical American terminology would not apply anyway. After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual...
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for nonmedical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

Finally, a bioethics professor at Princeton writes on his web site that killing a newborn is not the equivalent of killing a person, and that it is unethical in regard to the damage it might cause the parents (i.e., when they want the child) rather than any regard to the infant itself.
Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to her or his parents.

Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton, but I believe he is an Australian citizen (not sure about that, he was born there). His positions are not new news either, as this 1999 Washington Post article shows.
A Professor Who Argues for Infanticide


Interesting points Rvaughn. I could not find the discussion of the bill. I wonder how often a abortion is botched - it may have been a law over something that essentially never happens. It may have been a grandstanding effort.

The voting was very much along party lines and holds, blocks and cloture procedures no doubt played role in keeping the bill from making it to a vote. We have no words from Senators as to why they voted “Nay” to the cloture.

Sad to say, most Senators from either party very often block bills sponsored by the other party and that may be what has happened here - Ben Sasse (R-Neb) was the sponsor. Mitch McDonnell is sitting on over 100 bills already passed by the House. Some of the more important ones that seem common sensical and could have bipartisan support are given here. Read it please. Our legislative process has been stopped - we are not pursuing a “more perfect union” which is sad.

To say as William has said
"...and, apparently, it doesn't matter to Dems if babies are born and set aside to die, their mother's choice”
is unfounded to say the least. He made it sound like Dems are for infanticide for even normally delivered babies (typical RW extrapolation). And the "mother's choice" was not mentioned in the bill. Medical assessments were to be the criteria on these very rare “botched abortions” cases.

------------------

The medical bioethical journals have very nuanced discussions of what conditions are required to declare a botched abortion fetus dead (is brain dead, a pulse, sounds, etc.). This is typical of academic discussions and I doubt any Senators have been affected by these pubs - but I could be wrong (if you found a Senator quoting such a Journal). Henlee Barnette’s Exploing Medical Ethics comes to mind. {I seem to remember Ed liked or knew Henlee Barnette, an ex Samford Professor}

Peter Singer is a far out there ethicist who claims that “animals {not trees- that was Christopher Stone} have moral standing” (as I learned when I was taking an environmental ethics class at Samford). I’m not surprised by anything he says. And I am certain that few if any Senators are affected by his viewpoints.

{changed on morning of July 18 for accuracy}
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: More Sleaze in Trump Orbit

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:39 am

Keith, I don't have a lot of time this morning, but hopefully I can make a few sensible points briefly. I am pro-life, and believe that the deliberate attempt to kill a child in the womb in murder -- 100% of the time. Nevertheless, I do think that some pro-lifers grab on to statements just to use against the opposition without trying to understand them. Ralph Northam's might possibly be such. I say might because I have not read that he tried to explain it in the way I am going to explain it (re making a "non-viable" infant comfortable). Last year my Mother passed away at age 103. She had a great life, but at that age she did not want physicians to use extraordinary measures to keep her alive. She signed medical directives to that effect. About the last month, and especially the last two weeks of her life, she was in very poor condition. Hospice came in to help. They tried to fulfill her directive while keeping her comfortable, and I believe in general they succeeded. Now we might extrapolate that to an infant who has no evidence that he or she could survive, but the doctors would want to keep comfortable in the face of the inevitable. I think we all can get that. The main difference is, in my Mother's case she made the decision, where in the case of the infant the decision falls to the parents and doctors. That in itself is not unusual either. But a huge difference in the case of a botched abortion is that the very people who pro-abortionists say ought to be making the decision are the very people who are trying to kill the infant! Who can't see a conflict of interest there? (Apparently a good number of people.) In other cases where parents are not looking after the best interests of their children, it is not unusual for the state/courts to step in. However, abortion is so sacrosanct to some people they will not allow for the infant of a botched abortion to have this same right.

Was there some a grandstanding effort re this bill? Likely, politicians grandstand all the time. It is part of what they do. I wouldn't say the grandstanding was only on one side though. I don't know about the discussion of the bill in session, but a search might yield some of the discussion in the media. I found this purported tweet by Elizabeth Warren:
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1100186687131602945
Women and their doctors should decide what’s best for their health – not the @SenateGOP.
I'd say there is some grandstanding there, and relates to what I say above about the people trying to snuff out the life making the decision about the life. Her comment is a misdirection, since the bill is about a child already born alive and whose life is no longer in any way affecting the woman’s health (at least no more so than any living child outside the womb is then affecting a mother's health).

How often a abortion is botched? I have seen different numbers. It is not something that essentially never happens, but it is certainly a small number in relation to the number of abortions that take place. Nevertheless, in my opinion law does need to address it. My preference is at the state level, since that is usually where the law addresses the subject of murder.

Here is an article that says 66 infant were left to die in one year in the UK.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html

I've seen an article from ACLJ that gives 362 died after botched abortions in the US in the decade 2001-2010 (the most recent records, they said, at the time it was reported). The official source for this kind of data is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Underlying Cause of Death database. The ICD-10 category is P96.4, which is death subsequent to a failed termination of pregnancy (iow, born alive after an abortion, but then died). Unfortunately, when I tried yesterday, I got a broader category and could not figure how to narrow it to P96.4. Someone more computer literate probably can figure it out.

Out of time, taking the grandkids swimming -- which is more fun than political debate. ;-) Maybe can address more later.

[Edited 7/22/19 to correct misspelling of "debate".]
Last edited by Rvaughn on Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: More Sleaze in Trump Orbit

Postby KeithE » Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:56 am

I will repeat:

To say as William has said
"...and, apparently, it doesn't matter to Dems if babies are born and set aside to die, their mother's choice”

is unfounded to say the least. He made it sound like Dems are for infanticide for even normally delivered babies (typical RW extrapolation). And the "mother's choice" was not mentioned in the bill. Medical assessments were to be the criteria on these very rare “botched abortions” cases.


But perhaps this is not as “rare" as I thought - 66 botched abortions in the UK in 2005 (?) and 362 in ten years in the US and a law too advise seems appropriate. So yeah, I would have voted for this bill.

Hope you had fun swimming.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: More Sleaze in Trump Orbit

Postby Sandy » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:30 am

Rvaughn wrote: Was there some a grandstanding effort re this bill? Likely, politicians grandstand all the time. It is part of what they do. I wouldn't say the grandstanding was only on one side though. I don't know about the discussion of the bill in session, but a search might yield some of the discussion in the media. I found this purported tweet by Elizabeth Warren:
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/11 ... 7131602945


That's really the biggest problem with this whole issue, the "political grandstanding." For all the rhetoric, it has become almost impossible to come to a resolution of the issues surrounding abortion. The argument on the left has always been based on who, from a legal perspective, has control over the decision to end a pregnancy and that the government's acknowledgement of that perspective can't be affected or dictated on a religious basis because it must be neutral in that regard. Medical science simply lays out the options for the patient based on the ability and probability of success. So the choice is between laws that remove the choice from the mother and place it in the hands of a government that is neither concerned nor sympathetic to the circumstances of individual situations or laws which elevate the mother's rights over that of an unborn child. The "all or nothing" attitude on both sides has led to this becoming an issue for political advantage and losing sight of the real issue.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: More Sleaze in Trump Orbit

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:21 am

KeithE wrote:66 botched abortions in the UK in 2005 (?)
Yes, I also understood that it was referencing 2005.
KeithE wrote:Hope you had fun swimming.
Thanks. As it turned out, we didn't go. My wife got a call that her Dad had fallen 3 times, and we had to check on and spend most of the day with him. But the grandkids have had lots of swimming this summer, so missing one time didn't hurt them. Because of work, though, I've only been able to go two of the times that they went. (Father-in-law is OK. Had a bad reaction to some medicine.)
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Previous

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron