Republicans block bill to shield people who travel out of state for abortions

So which of these are self defense?

Terminating a pregnancy that has:
- 90% chance of killing mother?
- 75% chance
- 50% chance
-25% chance
- 10% chance
- 1% chance

 

You start from general principles and then you work your way from the general principles to the specific applications. Ectopic pregnancy is an easy decision because the baby practically never lives with a simultaneous high risk to the mother. There is some gray area here, but the principle that there are two lives involved should be considered when making legislation. It would be up to the states to determine what a reasonable threshold is. I don't think the state would pass laws about percentages per say, but there would be a list of conditions where a doctor could offer preterm parturition as an option to the mother.

 

Ok so this is up to the states but in other areas you want federal law to follow your view of Christianity.

So are you saying that you would oppose federal legislation or regulation to limit abortion, that it totally lies with the states?

 

Well, the concept is not that complicated. Let's use an analogy. Every state agrees that buildings need to be safe, but the building codes from state to state could be different. It would be immoral if a state decided to do away with building codes completely because building codes protect life. They keep people safe.

What is kind of going on in this discussion is I'm the one arguing that buildings need to be safe, and then y'all are the ones questioning the legitimacy of my claim that buildings need to be safe because there is a gray area involved in what codes should be put in place. The codes could differ from state and state, but they are all aimed at accomplishing the same main overarching goal of preserving life. The codes probably won't be perfect, but we are better off having something in place rather than nothing.

And FWIW, building codes are based on Christianity. In Deuteronomy 22:8 there is a law about building codes. Every Israelite by law had to have a parapet on their roof. Why is it there? Because it is an extension of the 10 commandments. It is evil for innocent people to die (thou shalt not murder), and therefore we must make our houses safe. This is also why we have seat belts, etc.

So, the principle of thou shalt not murder is not for the state to decide. It is not up for grabs for a mob majority democracy to decide that a certain group of people should be put to death. Nazi Germany had no right to kill Jews, and we have no right to kill babies. We must acknowledge that murder is wrong, and our laws must be aligned with that principle. What codes we put in place to accomplish upholding that moral principle might vary from state to state, but each state has a responsibility to uphold the principle to the best of their abilities.

 

So in terms of abortion, what degree / probability of maternal mortality is considered to be safe?

 

That is for each state to decide. I don't think there is an absolute number. There is only the general principle, and then laws are put in place to enforce the general principle.

Remember the analogy. Buildings should be safe, but every state has a different set of laws to respect that principle. The laws are not perfect, but they are better than not having any laws at all.

 

Gqtorplank, you’ve done stated your measuring stick is “self defense”. Ectopic survival rate for a mother is 2-4 per 1000. If 2-4 per 1000 is a gray area for you, well damn...

 

So states can decide whatever they want, because they can decide what is “safe”’however they want?

So if states decide a maternal death rate of 1 in 10,000, or even 1 in 100,00 isn’t safe, is that ok?

 

Remember another life hangs in the balance. Prematurely ending your son or daughter's life for a 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 risk of death would be wrong. If you wouldn't take that risk for your own child, then you're a coward and not a loving parent.

Again, though, I think there is a gray area, and laws could differ from state to state as to where the line is drawn in some of these scenarios. In some states it could be a lower number and in other states it could be a higher number.

 

You didn’t answer the question. Can the state decide that 1 in 100,000 is not safe?

 

That obviously violates the principle that all life is equally precious. I think that would be an unjust law if a state allowed something like that to happen. That is not in the gray area.

 

Good lord. Building codes are based on Christianity now.

 

Republican policies are gun care and health control.

 

I defend a mother protecting herself from the threat of an ectopic pregnancy. I am not against it. I didn't know the survival rate was so low for mothers, but that is an obvious example where medical intervention to save lives is justified.

 

So in your version of Christian Sharia your Handmaid’s Tale Supreme Court overturns that. Presumably 1 in 10,000 too.

What about 1 in 100? Is a 1 in 100 chance of maternal death safe?

 

So, sometimes you are being cross-examined and then the cross-examination makes you change your mind because you've thought more deeply about the question. I've changed my mind. I think the question can be quantified and defined mathematically. You just have to figure out how to define it. The goal is to minimize the number of deaths because all lives are equally precious. That is a problem that can be solved in a branch of mathematics called optimization.

I could see the government seeking out data scientists, operations research analysts, and statisticians to figure out the best laws to put in place to minimize the number of total deaths involved in pregnancy. That is the best and most fair way to do it. It abides by the principle we are trying to uphold that all lives are equally precious and valuable. It is a problem that can be solved mathematically. Whatever the solution to that optimization problem is I think that is the set of laws that should be adopted by each state, but there is one caveat. A mother should always be free to risk her own life for her own child if that is her will.

 

So you are basically saying that the life of the mother and life of the fetus are of equal importance?

Your solution is to hire elite highly educated bureaucrats to regulate reproductive rights policy?

 

All I'm saying is mathematical analysis could be a tool to guide the process of drafting policy surrounding when intervention should or shouldn't be allowed. Obviously, once you put laws on the books, then they must be enforced. That is how government works.

FWIW, these are tough difficult conversations. I'm not condemning anyone who disagrees with my proposed solutions. I think the important thing is acknowledging the God given principle that underlies the solution: Thou shalt not murder. Life is precious and valuable. We have a duty to preserve life where we can preserve it. If someone agrees with that on a fundamental level, and they recognize the great evil our nation has perpetrated by murdering 1/3 of our own generation over a 50 year time period, then we are on the same team trying to figure out how to navigate this post-Roe legal chaos we find ourselves in.

The problem is we want to build a new system based on justice and righteousness, but there are a lot of people who are apathetic, supportive, or even celebratory of the fact that we exterminate 1/3 of each generation in this country. People are going insane because it might not be possible to exterminate 1/3 of Americans anymore. Think about that. The right to choose to exterminate 1/3 of the next generation. What many people on the other side of the argument are saying is it is fine to exterminate 1/3 of a generation because at least we don't have to deal with the hairy issue of what happens to the 0.0001% or 0.00001% who have this case or that case. Just going to say the obvious...such objections are absurd and irrational on their face.

 

This seems like a good idea. We should try it with other public health issues and see how it goes.