Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Actually, no. Some people have principles. And libertarianism is ostensibly defined by a fairly simple set of principles. They're incoherent, but most libertarians don't know that.

Pic one at random and all illustrate for you.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the wording of the MN statute sucks, but I chalk it up to the extreme level of distrust between the two groups. There was lobbying for language admitting health exceptions, but the other point was that health exceptions seem to be interpreted incredibly broadly by pro-choice health workers, and it would merely work to allow the on-demand situation that was present prior.

You may be right that the exceptions would almost have to vbe ridiculously specfic -- given the leval of mistrust.

So, perhaps there could be a less vituperative exchange if you and AG agreed (as I think you do) -- that the Minn. law should have some exception to address/exempt cases involving an anencephalic fetus -- which most people I think would agree is not a human being?

(i.e. In such a case, we're not dealing with drawing lines based on vague determinations of the level of disability -- we're dealing with a life form with absolutely no brain -- thus no sentience now or ever.)

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This can't be a 1/1000th thing. Is there a cite somewhere is this thread to this? not taking a pro-life side here, just shocked that the number could be that high.

I believe that the 1/1000 number is not for anencephaly alone but is the incidence of all neural tube defects, which includes spina bifida. Anencephaly is the most severe of the neural tube defects.

First, I would just like to point out that many cases of neural tube defects (anencephaly, spina bifida) are preventable with folic acid supplementation. So any women who could become pregnant needs to be sure to get enough folic acid.

Second, since it was recognized that folic acid could prevent neural tube defects, the incidence of neural tube defects has declined markedly in industrialized nations. This is because flour and breads and cereals are being supplemented with folic acid for this exact reason - to prevent neural tube defects. And OBs are getting women on prenatal vitamins even before they conceive as long as they are even trying to conceive. It is working to lower the incidence of neural tube defects.

Third, I also don't understand why this neural tube defect showed up so late in this woman. They are usually diagnosed early because of elevated alpha-fetoprotein levels or because you can see it the early ultrasounds.

BTW - one of the most common reasons that women need late term abortions is because they did not seek prenatal care early on. This is a tragedy since every state in the US will provide you with prenatal care under Medicaid if you are poor.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Pic one at random and all illustrate for you.

Sheriff Coltrane? Is that you? You're going to have to take that chaw out of your mouth so I can understand you.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You may be right that the exceptions would almost have to vbe ridiculously specfic -- given the leval of mistrust.

So, perhaps there could be a less vituperative exchange if you and AG agreed (as I think you do) -- that the Minn. law should have some exception to address/exempt cases involving an anencephalic fetus -- which most people I think would agree is not a human being?

(i.e. In such a case, we're not dealing with drawing lines based on vague determinations of the level of disability -- we're dealing with a life form with absolutely no brain -- thus no sentience now or ever.)

S_A_M

Since we're discussing libertarianism and its discontents, S_A_M's post makes me think that the Minnesota regime described by Atticus is the worst possibly world from libertarian perspective -- the state lets you terminate the fetus, but doesn't trust with the decision sufficiently and forces you to listen to a statement about it first.

Originally posted by Not me
Second, since it was recognized that folic acid could prevent neural tube defects, the incidence of neural tube defects has declined markedly in industrialized nations. This is because flour and breads and cereals are being supplemented with folic acid for this exact reason - to prevent neural tube defects. And OBs are getting women on prenatal vitamins even before they conceive as long as they are even trying to conceive. It is working to lower the incidence of neural tube defects.

Libertarians presumably object to paying taxes for this.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
BTW - one of the most common reasons that women need late term abortions is because they did not seek prenatal care early on. This is a tragedy since every state in the US will provide you with prenatal care under Medicaid if you are poor.

Yes, I'm sure that all of those people who want/get abortions because they didn't get prenatal care would not have wanted/gotten an abortion if only they had gotten prenatal care. It couldn't possibly be that many people who really, really don't want to be pregnant or have a baby don't get prenatal care either because they don't give a shit or because they stayed in denial about the fact that they were actually pregnant for an extended period of time (if you aren't pregnant, why would you need to get prenatal care?).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Libertarians presumably object to paying taxes for this.

Do you mean for Medicaid or for folic acid supplementation?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Do you mean for Medicaid or for folic acid supplementation?

Medicaid, obviously, because folic acid supplementation is an unfunded mandate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Do you mean for Medicaid or for folic acid supplementation?

The latter.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, I'm sure that all of those people who want/get abortions because they didn't get prenatal care would not have wanted/gotten an abortion if only they had gotten prenatal care.

Confused again, I see. Let me help you through this. I specifically stated that a common reason for a LATE-TERM abortion was due to delay in seeking prenatal care. I never said anything about abortion in general. What I said was specifically about LATE-TERM abortions. Hopefully, my putting that in all caps will help you to better understand the point.

Many congenital abnormalities can be diagnosed early and an early elective abortion can be pursued if desired. In addition, some birth defects, such as the exact one that prompted this discussion, can be PREVENTED if early prenatal care is sought and the woman is placed on folic acid supplementation, thus obviating the need for the abortion in the first place.

Women need to act responsibly. If there is the possibility of becoming pregnant, is it too much to ask women to take a fucking daily vitamin? Is that just too much responsibility for a woman to bear?

BTW - a late-term abortion is significantly more risky (blood loss, death, infection) for the mother than an early abortion.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You may be right that the exceptions would almost have to vbe ridiculously specfic -- given the leval of mistrust.

So, perhaps there could be a less vituperative exchange if you and AG agreed (as I think you do) -- that the Minn. law should have some exception to address/exempt cases involving an anencephalic fetus -- which most people I think would agree is not a human being?

(i.e. In such a case, we're not dealing with drawing lines based on vague determinations of the level of disability -- we're dealing with a life form with absolutely no brain -- thus no sentience now or ever.)

S_A_M

I would agree with that completely. Problem is, it's a side issue to what I consider the main issue.

Main issue to me is, we now have two main invlved camps standing on the opposite sides of a path and screaming at each other, allowing for no deviation amongst themselves, and certainly not allowing that this question of preferenc eis going to have to be characterized by compromise. Neither side seems willing to compromise.

Instead, they take turns sharing these horrible anecdotes about pain, and characterizing the other side as being active proponents of their own particular form of hated pain.

Look at how AG characterized this. The MN leg intentionally sought to hurt these 68 women. He spouts this knowing why the statute is written as it is. It's sloganeering at its worst.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Confused again, I see. Let me help you through this. I specifically stated that a common reason for a LATE-TERM abortion was due to delay in seeking prenatal care. I never said anything about abortion in general. What I said was specifically about LATE-TERM abortions. Hopefully, my putting that in all caps will help you to better understand the point.

Many congenital abnormalities can be diagnosed early and an early elective abortion can be pursued if desired. In addition, some birth defects, such as the exact one that prompted this discussion, can be PREVENTED if early prenatal care is sought and the woman is placed on folic acid supplementation, thus obviating the need for the abortion in the first place.

Women need to act responsibly. If there is the possibility of becoming pregnant, is it too much to ask women to take a fucking daily vitamin? Is that just too much responsibility for a woman to bear?

BTW - a late-term abortion is significantly more risky (blood loss, death, infection) for the mother than an early abortion.

Yes, well, guess what -- if I don't really want a baby, I'm not going to spend the time taking folic acid, not drinking, not smoking, etc. etc. Do you always split your infinitives?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Since we're discussing libertarianism and its discontents, S_A_M's post makes me think that the Minnesota regime described by Atticus is the worst possibly world from libertarian perspective -- the state lets you terminate the fetus, but doesn't trust with the decision sufficiently and forces you to listen to a statement about it first.

Sounds like warnings on cig packs.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The latter.

Yes, libertarians would disagree with a law mandating the folic acid supplementation. However, I don't know if an actual law was passed or if the CDC just worked with the food producers. Perhaps someone can google this.

BTW - I am not an extremist libertarian. An extremist libertarian is almost an anarchist. I just want limited government. By limited, I mean the least necessary to accomplish those functions only government can accomplish. Like War.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yes, libertarians would disagree with a law mandating the folic acid supplementation. However, I don't know if an actual law was passed or if the CDC just worked with the food producers. Perhaps someone can google this.

BTW - I am not an extremist libertarian. An extremist libertarian is almost an anarchist. I just want limited government. By limited, I mean the least necessary to accomplish those functions only government can accomplish. Like War.

Without government, there are no property rights.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yes, libertarians would disagree with a law mandating the folic acid supplementation. However, I don't know if an actual law was passed or if the CDC just worked with the food producers. Perhaps someone can google this.

Objecting to a law regulating this is different from objecting to paying taxes for something, unless you are using "taxes" in the broad sense to include the presumably higher prices food producers are charging to cover the costs they incur in adding folic acid to foods, as mandated by the government. Please let me know (but not via PM, for obvious reasons) if you need me to put any of that in caps.