South carolina bill demands the pro life forces put their money where their mouths are

[Bill.in.PA]

The current laws give the mother life or death authority over the child until the day it is born even when she is married to the father. Once the child is born the father can prevent adoption and claim visitation rights even when the father raped the mother.

Where rapists can gain parental rights | CNN

Personally I think that unmarried women should be free to put a baby up for adoption without the consent of the father soon after birth.

[WuWei]

@AlexMcAlpine

@WuWei

1. So are you going to force them to abort?

2. How does the state paying change this? Seems like it would encourage it.

1. I would not force them to abort. But I would think they are pretty evil to bring such a child with no quality of life possible into the world.

2. I agree there. That’s the Catch-22. I don’t think states should pay welfare to women who have kids they can’t afford. (Bearing in mind that welfare is supposed to be a safety net, for people who have jobs but lose them, etc.) But if these women aren’t helped out financially, the kids lives would be even more miserable.

So you disagree with the bill?

[AlexMcAlpine]

@WuWei

Why? That’s exactly what an abortion is.

You think there are no gradations? No exceptions?

A woman who is raped and impregnated - you want her to carry that baby to term and then raise it as her own?

[WuWei]

@Bill.in.PA

The current laws give the mother life or death authority over the child until the day it is born even when she is married to the father. Once the child is born the father can prevent adoption and claim visitation rights even when the father raped the mother.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/parental-rights-rapists-explainer/index.html

Personally I think that unmarried women should be free to put a baby up for adoption without the consent of the father soon after birth.

Rapists should not have any parental rights at all ever. Zero. None.

If the sex was consensual then the father should have rights.

[WuWei]

@AlexMcAlpine

@WuWei

Why? That’s exactly what an abortion is.

You think there are no gradations? No exceptions?

A woman who is raped and impregnated - you want her to carry that baby to term and then raise it as her own?

No. She should be able to kill it, throw it away and do over. I already said that.

[Plasmaball]

More hyperbole please

[SottoVoce]

@markdido

@AlexMcAlpine

@moonshine

the bill says that if a person becomes disabled due to carrying a fetus to term the state has to pay all medical expenses for the disability. also if the fetus is born with a congenital disability teh state must cover all their medical expenses for life

Sounds good to me, but this is a bit of a slippery slope.

There are mothers who know their child will be born with a congenital defect and just don’t care, they will have it anyway, for whatever reason. Will the state have to pay for this child’s disabilities, and the mother’s, if the mother goes through with the pregnancy willingly, knowing the aftermath?

How compassionate of you.

Only perfect babies should be allowed to be born, right?

Compassionate?

Let’s take alobar holoprosencephaly.

Which is compassionate?

1. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Elective abortion is performed.

2. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Mother is required by law to carry to term. Infant is born premature. Infant spends the next month having repeated seizures until eventually dying from aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, or other defect.

The only slippery slope is allowing someone other than a mother and physician to decide what pregnancies are or are not “perfect.” I don’t like abortion. I like the idea that a pregnant woman is simply an incubator without control or choice even less.

[AlexMcAlpine]

@WuWei

So you disagree with the bill?

I think that if it’s possible for the women who want abortions for health reasons and are denied to get their compensation, while women who don’t want abortions for health reasons (and therefore are not denied) do NOT get compensated, then I’m for the bill.

The problem is there’s no way in hell that a pack of lawyers won’t descend on the bill and say all women should be compensated by the state for any injuries caused by carrying a baby to term, whether they were forced to or not.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@markdido

@AlexMcAlpine

@moonshine

the bill says that if a person becomes disabled due to carrying a fetus to term the state has to pay all medical expenses for the disability. also if the fetus is born with a congenital disability teh state must cover all their medical expenses for life

Sounds good to me, but this is a bit of a slippery slope.

There are mothers who know their child will be born with a congenital defect and just don’t care, they will have it anyway, for whatever reason. Will the state have to pay for this child’s disabilities, and the mother’s, if the mother goes through with the pregnancy willingly, knowing the aftermath?

How compassionate of you.

Only perfect babies should be allowed to be born, right?

Compassionate?

Let’s take alobar holoprosencephaly.

Which is compassionate?

1. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Elective abortion is performed.

2. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Mother is required by law to carry to term. Infant is born premature. Infant spends the next month having repeated seizures until eventually dying from aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, or other defect.

The only slippery slope is allowing someone other than a mother and physician to decide what pregnancies are or are not “perfect.” I don’t like abortion. I like the idea that a pregnant woman is simply an incubator without control or choice even less.

So mercy killing is ok?

[WuWei]

@AlexMcAlpine

@WuWei

So you disagree with the bill?

I think that if it’s possible for the women who want abortions for health reasons and are denied to get their compensation, while women who don’t want abortions for health reasons (and therefore are not denied) do NOT get compensated, then I’m for the bill.

The problem is there’s no way in hell that a pack of lawyers won’t descend on the bill and say all women should be compensated by the state for any injuries caused by carrying a baby to term, whether they were forced to or not.

So you disagree with the bill?

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@markdido

@AlexMcAlpine

@moonshine

the bill says that if a person becomes disabled due to carrying a fetus to term the state has to pay all medical expenses for the disability. also if the fetus is born with a congenital disability teh state must cover all their medical expenses for life

Sounds good to me, but this is a bit of a slippery slope.

There are mothers who know their child will be born with a congenital defect and just don’t care, they will have it anyway, for whatever reason. Will the state have to pay for this child’s disabilities, and the mother’s, if the mother goes through with the pregnancy willingly, knowing the aftermath?

How compassionate of you.

Only perfect babies should be allowed to be born, right?

Compassionate?

Let’s take alobar holoprosencephaly.

Which is compassionate?

1. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Elective abortion is performed.

2. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Mother is required by law to carry to term. Infant is born premature. Infant spends the next month having repeated seizures until eventually dying from aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, or other defect.

The only slippery slope is allowing someone other than a mother and physician to decide what pregnancies are or are not “perfect.” I don’t like abortion. I like the idea that a pregnant woman is simply an incubator without control or choice even less.

So mercy killing is ok?

Mercy killing? I call it compassionate death. Happens all the time with adults. Why would we force an infant to suffer through something an adult wouldn’t? Should we stop the practice of opting for DNR or advanced directives? Treat by all means in all situations is the way to go? Futility and patient comfort be damned?

[Steel-W0LF]

@AlexMcAlpine

@WuWei

Who forced her to get pregnant.

Let’s operate under the assumption that no one forced her to get pregnant. Mom and dad had all the tests and were pronounced “normal” and so their child should have been normal.

Yet tests reveal that something happened - maybe the woman was taking some pill that had unforseen side effects (like that pill years ago that ended up with babies being born without limbs - blanking on the name of it now).

And through no fault of the woman, carrying the baby to term will harm her and the baby.

Would you make her have the baby?

Did you know these types of cases account for less than a few percentage points of all abortions?

I’m fine with debating the merits of allowing abortions in the cases where there is severe disability or defects, or the life of the mother…

The problem arises when supporters try to use this small portion of justifiable abortions as a support for the 90something percent that are just a matter of convenience.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@markdido

@AlexMcAlpine

@moonshine

the bill says that if a person becomes disabled due to carrying a fetus to term the state has to pay all medical expenses for the disability. also if the fetus is born with a congenital disability teh state must cover all their medical expenses for life

Sounds good to me, but this is a bit of a slippery slope.

There are mothers who know their child will be born with a congenital defect and just don’t care, they will have it anyway, for whatever reason. Will the state have to pay for this child’s disabilities, and the mother’s, if the mother goes through with the pregnancy willingly, knowing the aftermath?

How compassionate of you.

Only perfect babies should be allowed to be born, right?

Compassionate?

Let’s take alobar holoprosencephaly.

Which is compassionate?

1. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Elective abortion is performed.

2. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Mother is required by law to carry to term. Infant is born premature. Infant spends the next month having repeated seizures until eventually dying from aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, or other defect.

The only slippery slope is allowing someone other than a mother and physician to decide what pregnancies are or are not “perfect.” I don’t like abortion. I like the idea that a pregnant woman is simply an incubator without control or choice even less.

So mercy killing is ok?

Mercy killing? I call it compassionate death. Happens all the time with adults. Why would we force an infant to suffer through something an adult wouldn’t? Should we stop the practice of opting for DNR or advanced directives? Treat by all means in all situations is the way to go? Futility and patient comfort be damned?

What’s the difference in the two?

I didn’t say that, I’m just asking what the rules are.

I agree, we have a right to commit suicide.

[WuWei]

@Steel-W0LF

The problem arises when supporters try to use this small portion of justifiable abortions as a support for the 90something percent that are just a matter of convenience.

Excellent point.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@markdido

@AlexMcAlpine

@moonshine

the bill says that if a person becomes disabled due to carrying a fetus to term the state has to pay all medical expenses for the disability. also if the fetus is born with a congenital disability teh state must cover all their medical expenses for life

Sounds good to me, but this is a bit of a slippery slope.

There are mothers who know their child will be born with a congenital defect and just don’t care, they will have it anyway, for whatever reason. Will the state have to pay for this child’s disabilities, and the mother’s, if the mother goes through with the pregnancy willingly, knowing the aftermath?

How compassionate of you.

Only perfect babies should be allowed to be born, right?

Compassionate?

Let’s take alobar holoprosencephaly.

Which is compassionate?

1. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Elective abortion is performed.

2. Defect is detected early in pregnancy. Mother is required by law to carry to term. Infant is born premature. Infant spends the next month having repeated seizures until eventually dying from aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, or other defect.

The only slippery slope is allowing someone other than a mother and physician to decide what pregnancies are or are not “perfect.” I don’t like abortion. I like the idea that a pregnant woman is simply an incubator without control or choice even less.

So mercy killing is ok?

Mercy killing? I call it compassionate death. Happens all the time with adults. Why would we force an infant to suffer through something an adult wouldn’t? Should we stop the practice of opting for DNR or advanced directives? Treat by all means in all situations is the way to go? Futility and patient comfort be damned?

What’s the difference in the two?

I didn’t say that, I’m just asking what the rules are.

I agree, we have a right to commit suicide.

No difference as long as we’re referring to the same thing. Mercy killing often has a military connotation.

I don’t have a specific set of rules. There are legal criteria which vary. I’d say any terminal condition without hope for meaningful recovery, typically with a significant decrease in quality of life, would cover most situations. There are some situations in which a condition is not terminal but leads to severe intractable quality of life issues which I think could also apply.

There is no quick and easy rubric for decisions in many of these cases. There will always be some subjectivity.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

Mercy killing often has a military connotation.

Does it? Strange. Not while I was there and I am a medic.

@SottoVoce

I’d say any terminal condition without hope for meaningful recovery, typically with a significant decrease in quality of life, would cover most situations.

Who decides?

@SottoVoce

There are some situations in which a condition is not terminal but leads to severe intractable quality of life issues which I think could also apply.

Ibid.

@SottoVoce

There will always be some subjectivity.

Whose?

[LucyLou]

@WuWei

Whose?

People get to decide that for themselves.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

Mercy killing often has a military connotation.

Does it? Strange. Not while I was there and I am a medic.

@SottoVoce

I’d say any terminal condition without hope for meaningful recovery, typically with a significant decrease in quality of life, would cover most situations.

Who decides?

@SottoVoce

There are some situations in which a condition is not terminal but leads to severe intractable quality of life issues which I think could also apply.

Ibid.

@SottoVoce

There will always be some subjectivity.

Whose?

Patient and physician. Answer for all but first question. (EDIT: family, next of kin, healthcare POA when patient is unable to make decisions.)

Military mercy killing.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15027570.2013.818401?journalCode=smil20

[WuWei]

@LucyLou

@WuWei

Whose?

People get to decide that for themselves.

Do they? How about in a single payer system?

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

Mercy killing often has a military connotation.

Does it? Strange. Not while I was there and I am a medic.

@SottoVoce

I’d say any terminal condition without hope for meaningful recovery, typically with a significant decrease in quality of life, would cover most situations.

Who decides?

@SottoVoce

There are some situations in which a condition is not terminal but leads to severe intractable quality of life issues which I think could also apply.

Ibid.

@SottoVoce

There will always be some subjectivity.

Whose?

Patient and physician. Answer for all but first question. (EDIT: family, next of kin, healthcare POA when patient is unable to make decisions.)

Military mercy killing.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15027570.2013.818401?journalCode=smil20

Did you read that article?