Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ohio bill and ectopic pregnancies?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Several bills have been introduced on abortion in Ohio. The "fetal heartbeat bill" dealt with insurance, but had some key provisions taken out at the last minute. So another bill was introduced.

    The legislator, Becker, claims there are two cases in which an ectopic pregnancy was successful in saving the baby by reimplanting the baby in the appropriate organ.

    Does life begin at conception, or at the time of pregnancy, defined as the successful implantation in the uterus? The answers are not neat and tidy.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by simplicio View Post
      Hb 413. It is in committee. https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/leg...d=GA133-HB-413

      The bill is 723 pp. The main part is section 2904, lines 5300 to 5380. It creates a new crime, 'aggravated abortion murder". I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if it places the woman as a perpetrator of a violent crime, not a victim of abortion. My read is that it does.

      I don't know how it would affect ministries to women who have had abortion. It reminds me of the good old days, when protests at clinics had protesters screaming murderer. It was not effective then, and took some time and effort to change hearts and minds in the pro life camp.


      Thank you for the PDF and the locating information.

      1) Yes, unless under duress.
      2) Not at all at present - laws aren't retroactive. I don't find 'allowing women to kill their babies so we can provide counselling later' a compelling argument so this is rather moot to me.

      I will now be ranting in general.



      No, the bill DOES NOT require reimplantation of an ectopic pregnancy (at least not now). What part of 'if applicable' confuses you people? Or 'affirmative defense'?

      It's just providing that IF a means exists to save the non-viable embryo/fetus then the attempt must be made (the previous sections negate this if it would pose a fatal threat to the mother). If no such means exist, then the section is inapplicable - as stated in the freaking statute!!!!! Y'all are going off because it gave a potential example as if it were a requirement now!

      This is why we read the actual statute and not The Guardian's hit pieces.

      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post


        Thank you for the PDF and the locating information.

        1) Yes, unless under duress.
        2) Not at all at present - laws aren't retroactive. I don't find 'allowing women to kill their babies so we can provide counselling later' a compelling argument so this is rather moot to me.

        I will now be ranting in general.



        No, the bill DOES NOT require reimplantation of an ectopic pregnancy (at least not now). What part of 'if applicable' confuses you people? Or 'affirmative defense'?

        It's just providing that IF a means exists to save the non-viable embryo/fetus then the attempt must be made (the previous sections negate this if it would pose a fatal threat to the mother). If no such means exist, then the section is inapplicable - as stated in the freaking statute!!!!! Y'all are going off because it gave a potential example as if it were a requirement now!

        This is why we read the actual statute and not The Guardian's hit pieces.
        Yet the law specifically cited a nonexistent medical procedure, transplanting a fetus into the proper reproductive organ after ripping apart another organ.

        The principle of double effect is a general principle used for ethical decisions; the bill tries to codify philosophic justification into law. The bill is hitting the news, and with good reason.

        Do you think that creating a legal novum, abortion murder, will result in any less abortions being performed?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by simplicio View Post
          Yet the law specifically cited a nonexistent medical procedure, transplanting a fetus into the proper reproductive organ after ripping apart another organ.
          Er, weren't you the one that pointed out Becker might have grounds for the idea? And they don't 'rip apart' the Fallopian tube -that's utter nonsense.

          Thirty years ago few babies under 24 weeks survived at all - now it happens all the time. Who's to say what they might be able to do in the future?

          Honestly, inverting the tube into the uterus might someday be an option - who knows? Why shouldn't the law anticipate advances in medical science?

          The principle of double effect is a general principle used for ethical decisions; the bill tries to codify philosophic justification into law. The bill is hitting the news, and with good reason.
          Yeah, click bait.
          Do you think that creating a legal novum, abortion murder, will result in any less abortions being performed?
          What's new about it? Laws against abortion predate and have a longer history than Roe. And yes, doctors aren't big on life sentences - cuts down the murder rate in every other area, kinda silly to assume it won't for baby murder.

          Are you even pro-life?

          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            This is why we read the actual statute and not The Guardian's hit pieces.
            The pro-life organization I most closely follow maintains that the bill does do exactly what the Guardian claims. I trust their expertise. It's not hard to imagine the actual genesis of the bill; one pro-life author asserted that ectopic pregnancies should not be removed in the Federalist several months ago (then retracted her claim after doctors informed her she was out to lunch): https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/19...-mothers-life/
            Last edited by KingsGambit; 12-04-2019, 12:27 AM.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Er, weren't you the one that pointed out Becker might have grounds for the idea? And they don't 'rip apart' the Fallopian tube -that's utter nonsense.

              Thirty years ago few babies under 24 weeks survived at all - now it happens all the time. Who's to say what they might be able to do in the future?

              Honestly, inverting the tube into the uterus might someday be an option - who knows? Why shouldn't the law anticipate advances in medical science?

              Yeah, click bait.
              What's new about it? Laws against abortion predate and have a longer history than Roe. And yes, doctors aren't big on life sentences - cuts down the murder rate in every other area, kinda silly to assume it won't for baby murder.

              Are you even pro-life?
              Yes I am pro life. But I do not support each and every idea coming down the pike, especially when I see them as counter productive to the pro life cause. And many in the pro life community find this bill counterproductive.

              I suspect this is part of a strategy to flood statehouses with anti abortion legislation to force a Supreme Court case which bundles all the state laws. I do not believe that is effective.

              Becker did cite two cases in support of his view. I am not a doctor, but it seems that the medical profession, including those who specialize in women's reproductive health are not impressed with the science. This bill addresses insurance reimbursements for such procedures, guaranteeing a showdown in the courts.

              I think it telling that you ignored the comment about the principle of double effect, which presents ethical criteria used for decision making.

              Are you pro life, or merely anti abortion? The two are not identical.

              Yes, laws against abortion do predate Roe, and have a long history. But so does the desire for abortion as well as the actual procedure. Abortions have existed even where they are illegal.

              Bottom line, I do not think the pro life cause is advanced in any way by this law, and I think it paints pro life Christians an a bad light, as anti science.

              In some cases the fallopian tube is removed or irreparably harmed in the "solving" the problem of the extra uterine pregnancy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                Yes I am pro life. But I do not support each and every idea coming down the pike, especially when I see them as counter productive to the pro life cause. And many in the pro life community find this bill counterproductive.

                I suspect this is part of a strategy to flood statehouses with anti abortion legislation to force a Supreme Court case which bundles all the state laws. I do not believe that is effective.

                Becker did cite two cases in support of his view. I am not a doctor, but it seems that the medical profession, including those who specialize in women's reproductive health are not impressed with the science. This bill addresses insurance reimbursements for such procedures, guaranteeing a showdown in the courts.

                I think it telling that you ignored the comment about the principle of double effect, which presents ethical criteria used for decision making.

                Are you pro life, or merely anti abortion? The two are not identical.

                Yes, laws against abortion do predate Roe, and have a long history. But so does the desire for abortion as well as the actual procedure. Abortions have existed even where they are illegal.

                Bottom line, I do not think the pro life cause is advanced in any way by this law, and I think it paints pro life Christians an a bad light, as anti science.

                In some cases the fallopian tube is removed or irreparably harmed in the "solving" the problem of the extra uterine pregnancy.
                In the pro-life movement, only anti-abortion is “pro-life” and all other life supporting measures are something else that is not to be confused with pro-life.

                That said, if it allowed for re-implantation “where possible”, then this might not be so bad.
                I am become death...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  The pro-life organization I most closely follow maintains that the bill does do exactly what the Guardian claims. I trust their expertise. It's not hard to imagine the actual genesis of the bill; one pro-life author asserted that ectopic pregnancies should not be removed in the Federalist several months ago (then retracted her claim after doctors informed her she was out to lunch): https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/19...-mothers-life/
                  That's nice -I prefer primary to secondary sources when available. And no, it doesn't - the statute doesn't read that way.

                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ana Dragule View Post
                    In the pro-life movement, only anti-abortion is “pro-life” and all other life supporting measures are something else that is not to be confused with pro-life.

                    That said, if it allowed for re-implantation “where possible”, then this might not be so bad.
                    Interesting, as well as surprising.

                    Some see prolife as encompassing antiabortion, but also including more. The Old Testament admonition to "Choose life", was preceded by the observation that it was also in the heart. When we discuss human life, it is the whole person which has dignity, and the image of G-d. Life includes much more than the initial nine months of gestation.

                    Implantation, where possible is a red herring. It does not exist within medical practice, reality. The intersection of morality and legislation is complex, simplistic bromides are counter productive.

                    I see the bill as counterproductive, not helping the prolife cause. In fact, I see it as harmful in the long view.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                      Interesting, as well as surprising.

                      Some see prolife as encompassing antiabortion, but also including more. The Old Testament admonition to "Choose life", was preceded by the observation that it was also in the heart. When we discuss human life, it is the whole person which has dignity, and the image of G-d. Life includes much more than the initial nine months of gestation.
                      I agree. I think a generally life-supporting stance is what Christians should have, but “pro-life” is the party line. It is what it is, and one hopes most Christians vote on more than one or two issues.

                      Implantation, where possible is a red herring. It does not exist within medical practice, reality. The intersection of morality and legislation is complex, simplistic bromides are counter productive.

                      I see the bill as counterproductive, not helping the prolife cause. In fact, I see it as harmful in the long view.
                      Not arguing on the bill as-is is good, but saying implanting “if possible” and thus not implanting if not possible would help. Like Teal said. You never know what the future holds-I am sure most of those mothers with ectopic pregnancies would prefer to keep their child if possible and but it would put no obligation on the impossible. I suppose more clarity on how to tell if it was possible would be needed, but some measure of “within a rational judgement using the medical advances at the time” would help.
                      I am become death...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ana Dragule View Post
                        I agree. I think a generally life-supporting stance is what Christians should have, but “pro-life” is the party line. It is what it is, and one hopes most Christians vote on more than one or two issues.



                        Not arguing on the bill as-is is good, but saying implanting “if possible” and thus not implanting if not possible would help. Like Teal said. You never know what the future holds-I am sure most of those mothers with ectopic pregnancies would prefer to keep their child if possible and but it would put no obligation on the impossible. I suppose more clarity on how to tell if it was possible would be needed, but some measure of “within a rational judgement using the medical advances at the time” would help.
                        So the earlier comment that "only anti-abortion is prolife" did need some adjusting. Pro life is a set of values consistent with the faith.

                        I do not see the bill as consistent with pro life values, it is an attempt to force a show down at the highest courts, involving the insurance companies and places into law a purposeful ambiguity. The criticisms of the law have been referred to as hit pieces, which dismiss the various problems with the bill.

                        It is not only those with sympathies for abortion who object to the bill, many within the pro life movement have problems with the bill.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                          So the earlier comment that "only anti-abortion is prolife" did need some adjusting. Pro life is a set of values consistent with the faith.
                          Not exactly what she said - but she can address that if she likes.

                          I do not see the bill as consistent with pro life values, it is an attempt to force a show down at the highest courts, involving the insurance companies and places into law a purposeful ambiguity. The criticisms of the law have been referred to as hit pieces, which dismiss the various problems with the bill.
                          Then you failed to understand it - or you're so used to appeasement that you value the favor of the world over the lives of the babies.
                          It is not only those with sympathies for abortion who object to the bill, many within the pro life movement have problems with the bill.
                          Which is a strike against the movement that has so lost its way that it cares more about appearance than life.

                          Pro-life is the descriptor of the anti-abortion movement. Anti-death penalty is a separate movement. Stop the spin crap - 46 years and more than 60 million brutally cruel murders - THAT HAS TO STOP. If you don't think so, you are NOT pro-life and you can take your world loving, death worship elsewhere.

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Not exactly what she said - but she can address that if she likes.

                            Then you failed to understand it - or you're so used to appeasement that you value the favor of the world over the lives of the babies.
                            Which is a strike against the movement that has so lost its way that it cares more about appearance than life.

                            Pro-life is the descriptor of the anti-abortion movement. Anti-death penalty is a separate movement. Stop the spin crap - 46 years and more than 60 million brutally cruel murders - THAT HAS TO STOP. If you don't think so, you are NOT pro-life and you can take your world loving, death worship elsewhere.
                            I read, and re read the post. It does not make sense to me, unless the poster rejects Catholic pro life teaching, which I doubt is the case.

                            Pro life is more than anti abortion. The existence of abortion in this society is a scandal. But mindless support of any bill which comes down the pike is hardly consistent with a practical way to push Christian values into the public square.

                            Nor is my position "appeasement", especially on a controversial bill such as this. Many pro lifers see this bill as counterproductive. If it is counterproductive, then it is not advancing the pro life cause, even if pro life cause is reduced to nothing more than anti abortion. If it is not advancing the anti abortion cause, then is it really pro life?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Does strategy matter? I think it does. Here is an article on whether the various bills a pragmatic, effective. There are other articles.

                              http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/et...-life-movement

                              I do not live in Ohio, so I am not familiar with Ohio Right to Life. But I doubt we can relegate them to the ranks of Quisling appeasers willing to accommodate the evils of abortion.

                              "...there is a legitimate concern that laws could backfire if they are overturned in court. That's,why great care is put into evaluating which efforts to get behind and ensuring the laws are soundly written to withstand judicial challenge"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                46 years of 'strategy' and babies are still being slaughtered. I once believed that crap - now I believe it's better to speak the truth.

                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by mossrose, Yesterday, 08:17 PM
                                0 responses
                                6 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2020, 10:51 AM
                                3 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christianbookworm  
                                Started by Littlejoe, 10-01-2020, 04:53 PM
                                6 responses
                                116 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Frogwarrior  
                                Working...
                                X