# Abortion



## Bullgrit (Jul 2, 2015)

I posted this to my blog back in January:

***
I don’t believe human life begins at conception. The idea that a few microscopic cells can be considered human life just doesn’t make sense to me. Depending on what statistic you read, 1/4 to 1/3 of known pregnancies end in a miscarriage. That’s known pregnancies. Add in the miscarriages that happen before a woman even knows she’s had an egg fertilized, that would be a lot of “human life” lost if it started at conception.

But I do believe human life begins at some point in utero. Where exactly during the gestation period, I couldn’t pinpoint, but I can accept the legal ruling of somewhere in the second or third trimester – at around 24 weeks, a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, as a living baby. If a person, (a woman, of course), can’t decide if she wants to terminate her pregnancy within a few months, I can accept the state erring on the side of “it’s human life at this point,” and requiring that she just finish the pregnancy. I think this is reasonable for a civilized society.

I don’t support shaming or trying to talk a woman out of getting an abortion by forcing ultrasound or therapy or religion on her before the decision. I doubt many women make the decision, either way, flippantly. The decision should be between the woman and her doctor. But I do support notifying parents if the girl is under age. If a parent is expected to be, and is legally responsible for their underage child, then they can’t be kept in the dark about something like this medical procedure.

I also don’t think the man whose sperm fertilized the egg necessarily must be notified and give consent. Before it is actually a baby/human life, (at the second or third trimester, or at 24 weeks gestation), he was just the sperm donor to, (probably unintentionally), fertilize an egg. After that time, he is the father, then with the legal and moral responsibilities that comes with fatherhood. Now, within a relationship, (like a marriage), I think a woman should let the “sperm donor” know. I mean, if the relationship is healthy, I would think one would talk to their spouse before getting even a tattoo. So talking before an abortion should be a basic consideration. If a woman doesn’t want to tell their boyfriend/husband before terminating a pregnancy, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the relationship outside of that issue.

Those who insist that a woman should have the right to abort right up till the natural birth, I feel are gruesome. And those who insist that a woman should never end a pregnancy even with a morning after pill, I feel are controlling zealots.

***

How do you feel on this topic?

Bullgrit

Edit/P.S.: I feel this is a health topic, and I would label it as such, but it is a controversial topic within politics and religion, so I labeled it politics trying to stay within the spirit of Morrus' new allowance for such discussions.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 2, 2015)

I believe that a 24 week limit on abortion would seem to be a reasonable compromise, barring exigent circumstances. I also believe that I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I don't own a uterus.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

I believe that life begins at conception, but recognize that reasonable folk can differ.   While I oppose abortion, I pragmatically accept that an absolute ban is highly unlikely.

So I support:

1) exceptions in the case of the life of the mother
2) bans after a certain period of gestation (I have not settled on a particular time period)
3) general policies that reduce the societal pressures leading to someone deciding to abort
4) general policies that streamline the adoption process


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 2, 2015)

I should also mention a couple of other things, that inform my conclusions. I was loosely raised Catholic, by a father who hated the fact that he was taught through the Nova Scotia Catholic school system. When I was a teenager and kicking around downtown Toronto, I would frequently see the protesters in front of The Morgentaler Clinic (Dr. Morgentaler was a pioneer in Canadian abortion and went to jail, more than once, for his actions). Most of the protesters I saw, in front of the clinic, were middle-aged white men. In fact almost all of them. I saw the aftermath of the bombing of that clinic. A friend eventually became Dr. Morgentaler's executive assistant, for some years, prior to his retirement.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

No one living is forced to give an organ to save a life. Even parents aren't forced to give an organ or blood or bone marrow to save their own kids. Because we have sovereignty over our own bodies when living. Even at the cost of someone's else life. 

Why should a woman be forced to give her uterus (among other things) to let someone else live? Why that exception based only on gender? 

If you want pro-life policies, try sexual education, have birth control easily available, make sure parents get paid when a child is born (and a bit before), have public daycares, etc.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Jul 2, 2015)

I agree with Goldomark pretty much completely on this.

However!  

This is also one of those areas where I feel that my opinion is not the important one.  I am a woman who can never get pregnant.  People like me and men and anyone else who can't get pregnant are not the people whose opinions matter on this subject, in my opinion.  Women potentially facing the possibility of pregnancy and abortion are the ones who should make the choices and policies concerning it (with expert medical opinions, preferably from female doctors, informing policy).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> No one living is forced to give an organ to save a life. Even parents aren't forced to give an organ or blood or bone marrow to save their own kids. Because we have sovereignty over our own bodies when living. Even at the cost of someone's else life.
> 
> Why should a woman be forced to give her uterus (among other things) to let someone else live? Why that exception based only on gender?



Those situations are distinguishable:

In organ donation, it is possible to do so voluntarily, and certain organs may be donated without killing someone.  In those cases when it would not, you'd be making a qualitative decision that the donor's life is less important than the donee's.  Definitely raises constitutional issues.  Add to that, there is no affirmative duty to save someone's life unless it is actually your job: fireman, EMT, policeman, lifeguard, doctor, nurse, etc. (and then only in certain situations, or if you put that someone in danger.  Barring those caveats, the state cannot force action.  Legally, we're mostly free to stand by and let people die.  It would be hard to find a state duty to snuff out a life as a medical remedy.

With abortion, one life is always going to get ended.  One particular life which has- at this time- no say and almost no legal status.  But for certain subset of cases, there is no medical necessity to the procedure.


----------



## Janx (Jul 2, 2015)

I subscribe to the ideas from Freakonomics.

They did research and math.  They found that abortion being legal reduces the crime rate.

Women who are in situations where they would consider abortion are likely not in a situation where they can or will do well in raising their child.  The result is a child raised in poor, possibly unwanted circumstances, growing up in a resentful environment and turning to crime.

Why subject a child to that risk when you can wait for more stability.

Furthermore, Freakonomics found a trend, that women are sort of "destined" to have how ever many kids she "wants" to have.  In that, if she kind of wanted 3 kids, but has an abortion in her younger years, later, she still will have three kids, when she is ready.  From a practical standpoint, the headcount isn't being reduced, just timed to when a woman is more ready for it.

From a spiritual standpoint, an early stage fetus doesn't have enough neural network to represent a person yet.  If you believe in souls existing separate from the body, a soul planning to land in a baby to be born 8 months from now that gets aborted or miscarried, will just move on to another baby candidate.  Granted, that's kind of the definition of reincarnation or some kind of recycling.  But that's not any more far fetched than assuming that souls are magically generated from nothing constantly to bind to physical forms.  It doesn't have to be a bad thing unless you choose to believe it is.  Given the whack jobs who willingly blow themselves up to kill people so their own soul will go to heaven, I can't believe anything bad happens to baby souls that don't get born.  A heaven/soul system that doesn't handle stuff like that isn't a heaven at all.

From a political standpoint, the folks blocking abortion are the same folks who vote against any kind of assistance for poor people (who tend to be the ones lacking in birth control, etc).  So they are forcing poor women to have babies that they are stuck with raising in an environment with scarce resources.  Which in turn cranks up the crime rate.

From a culture standpoint:
people have sex.  all the religion in the world hasn't stopped it, and in fact Christians who self identify score rather high on the demographic on cheater sites.  Clearly, abstinence is just wishful thinking.
So the very people against abortion are the very people being hypocritical and damaging to themselves (at least here in TX, stripclub and church mecca)
women don't always have the same choices guys have, and that can mean having sex with the boyfriend to keep him around because it provides food and shelter.  Let's not call it prostitution, but it is a practical aspect of life.
condoms break, pills don't always work.  Even careful people need a next line of defense.  The anti-abortion crowd judges and puts a stigma on folks who are stuck making a tough choice.

I would suspect that abortion would go down when poverty levels lower, access to birth control and sex ed goes up.  When folks have the knowledge, tools and opportunities to avoid trouble, make better choices, etc, it will naturally not happen often enough to be a big deal.  Even now, it's not like there's zillions or abortions going on.   They just need to be available for when they are needed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In organ donation, it is possible to do so voluntarily, and certain organs may be donated without killing someone.  In those cases when it would not, you'd be making a qualitative decision that the donor's life is less important than the donee's.



Danger to the doner is irrelevant. Forcing a parent to donate blood to its child or stranger is still impossible, so is forcing someone to give bone marrow and those aren't very risky procedures.



> With abortion, one life is always going to get ended.



So what? From organdonor.gov: 







> Each day, an average of 79 people receive organ transplants. However, an average of 22 people die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs.



There are lots of death related to the need of organs. Why not force living people to give organs, blood or bone marrow if it doesn't kill them? Why not "force" the dead who really do not need those? Why not at least force parents when it is there own kid? Why stop "forcing" at birth?



> One particular life which has- at this time- no say and almost no legal status.



If a kid needs a kidney and is dad is a compatible donor, the kid still has no say in what his dad will do and he has a better legal status than a zygote.   

Is the dad being an ass? Sure, but that ain't illegal. 



> But for certain subset of cases, there is no medical necessity to the procedure.



There are all sorts of risks associated with pregnancy, some less apparent than others. Necessity is relative. But that point is irrelevant. It is a woman's uterus, she does what she wants with it. Like a father does what he wants with his kidney, liver, lung, bone marrow, blood or poo*.


*Yes, poo transplant is a thing**. Check it out! 
** Yes, I had to talk about.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 2, 2015)

I don't believe one can analyze the particulars without considering the the overall process, and considering features at all steps of the process:

Women carry many thousands of unfertilized eggs. Only a few, if any, will be fertilized and become new people. Those eggs are alive before they are fertilized. Most are never released, and most which are released die unfertilized.

Folks avoid turning them into babies by using birth control or abortion, or by not having sex at all.  (Or, by not using in-vitro fertilization.)  Historically, what babies were made was controlled by controlling what men and women had sex.  In modern times, birth control and abortion are an option.  (Abortion has been an options for a very long time, but was very dangerous until relatively recently.)

There was a time where having many babies was a viable strategy, given mortality rates.  That is no longer feasible.

Folks have strong drives both to reproduce, and to cull competition. Reproduction has very strong economic and legal repercussions. There are historical aspects to state control of reproduction, including issues such as involuntary sterilization and state coerced reproduction.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## billd91 (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I believe that life begins at conception, but recognize that reasonable folk can differ.   While I oppose abortion, I pragmatically accept that an absolute ban is highly unlikely.
> 
> So I support:
> 
> ...




I think those are well considered reasons, though I always push people to not merely consider the life of the mother, but also the *health* of the mother since a pregnancy may threaten her health, particularly reproductive health, more than her life. There are pregnancy complications that can ruin a woman's fertility and I think it's generally preferable to abort a non-viable pregnancy that could ruin her chances of trying again and having a healthy child.

For me, our general failure at #3 convinces me to support access to safe abortions on the woman's choice.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

Not to mention that illegality means a return of "coat hangers" as birth control.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Danger to the doner is irrelevant. Forcing a parent to donate blood to its child or stranger is still impossible, so is forcing someone to give bone marrow and those aren't very risky procedures.



Danger to the donor is never irrelevant.  Ethical concerns aside, it also raises an inescapable constitutional issue of deprivation of life or liberty without due process.

Remember, bone marrow transplants are a surgical procedure.  Even though they are low-risk compared to other surgeries, all surgeries carry some risk of death or serious injury.



> So what? From organdonor.gov: There are lots of death related to the need of organs. Why not force living people to give organs, blood or bone marrow if it doesn't kill them? Why not "force" the dead who really do not need those? Why not at least force parents when it is there own kid? Why stop "forcing" at birth?



Again, in the USA, there is no affirmative duty to save the life of another unless it is your job or you placed the person in jeopardy of loss of life in the first place.  



> If a kid needs a kidney and is dad is a compatible donor, the kid still has no say in what his dad will do and he has a better legal status than a zygote.
> 
> Is the dad being an ass? Sure, but that ain't illegal.




In most- not all- cases, if the Dad says no, the kid still has a reasonable chance of survival if another donor can be found.  A familial donator is always preferred, but isn't necessary.

In contrast, with current medical technology, a child in utero essentially has no other option for survival outside the womb until it reaches a certain age.  Even then, premies are at increased odds of certain medical conditions the rest of their lives.



> There are all sorts of risks associated with pregnancy, some less apparent than others. Necessity is relative. But that point is irrelevant.




I'm well aware of the risks.  And risk is never irrelevant.



> It is a woman's uterus, she does what she wants with it.




In the USA, no right is absolute.  The is always a balancing act between rights and duties, between individual needs and those of the population in general/the state.

And yes, I do fully realize that in this case, we are talking about the state invasively protecting a person/something* within the body of another human, so the bar has to be set pretty high.  My personal, considered opinion is that when the taking of life is involved, the stakes are legitimately high enough to warrant it, at least granting a stay of execution until the baby is viable and can be placed for adoption.




* depending on your view of the personhood of a fetus


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Not to mention that illegality means a return of "coat hangers" as birth control.




That may be overstated.

But abortificants (historically, poison, taken to induce an abortion), were a serious problem.  A modern abortificant isn't a poison; what was taken in the 19th century was.

What was presented in the college course that I took was that stopping abortions is pretty hard: Women will take extreme risks to terminate pregnancy.

(To say: The consequences of an unplanned pregnancy was much more harsh in the 19th century, at least here in the United States.)

Better education and health care, including access to contraceptives, would probably have a huge impact on abortions.  I'm of the opinion that, as a practical matter, focusing on abortions diverts resources from their most efficient use.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> That may be overstated.
> 
> But abortificants (historically, poison, taken to induce an abortion), were a serious problem.  A modern abortificant isn't a poison; what was taken in the 19th century was.
> 
> What was presented in the college course that I took was that stopping abortions is pretty hard: Women will take extreme risks to terminate pregnancy.




Contraceptives and abortifcants- functional or not- have been around since the Egyptians.  They're not going away.




> Better education and health care, including access to contraceptives, would probably have a huge impact on abortions.  I'm of the opinion that, as a practical matter, focusing on abortions diverts resources from their most efficient use.




That's where my opinion gravitates, as well.  

I'm not so sure if greater AVAILABILITY of contraception is needed so much as education in their proper use and the ethics & consequences of their non-use.  If nothing else, the guys have to realize that it is as much their responsibility as that of their partners.  And that STDs don't play favorites or care about how good a time you had.

We might also have to include laws making it a lot tougher for guys to escape responsibility if a pregnancy results.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 2, 2015)

Snark-free answer: Abortions should be legal and easily accessible, at the choice of the mother. I value the actualized person that is the mother more than the potential person that is the embryo. I don't believe in any sort of 'soul' that is lost if a bundle of cells incapable of existing outside of a womb fails to develop into a child.

That said, if the mother wants the child, let's also make it less likely for the mother's life to be ruined by the cost of child care, or the child's life ruined by its parents' inability to afford to raise it. It's galling to me that many people are all for 'protecting the sanctity of life' by forbidding abortions, but the moment the child is born they refuse to lend any aid to help it have a good life.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

> It's galling to me that many people are all for 'protecting the sanctity of life' by forbidding abortions, but the moment the child is born they refuse to lend any aid to help it have a good life.




Yeah, I don't respect that position, either.  If you're going to demand a scacrifice in the liberties of the unwilling or unable mother, you necessarily incur at least a MORAL duty to not throw a metic ton of societal hurdles in the way of the life you fought so hard to bring into the world.  

Put differently: *If life begins at conception, duty does not end at birth.*


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yeah, I don't respect that position, either.  If you're going to demand a scacrifice in the liberties of the unwilling or unable mother, you necessarily incur at least a MORAL duty to not throw a metic ton of societal hurdles in the way of the life you fought so hard to bring into the world.
> 
> Put differently: *If life begins at conception, duty does not end at birth.*




It does seem rather odd that most of those who decry abortion are also the ones who want to keep the government out of their pockets because they don't want to be supporting 'those Welfare cheats', doesn't it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

Drives me nuts.  I find it an amazingly un-Christian position.

What makes it even weirder is the overall tendency of social conservatives to donate more to charitable organizations than their social progressive counterparts.  Which, of course, begs the questions: what charities are they donating to?


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 3, 2015)

Can't say that I've ever seen a breakdown, but tithing would certainly count under the heading of "charitable donations."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

It does, but be careful: social conservatives don't have a monopoly on that- there are social progressives who tithe, too.

...sometimes, out of the same checking account.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 3, 2015)

True enough. It would certainly be interesting to see how it breaks down based on political leanings and religious declaration. An interesting point, that I came across a while back, was that Americans are more 'generous' in their charitable donations than are Canadians. Perhaps it has something to do with our feeling that we're already doing some good, via our taxes as applied to the social safety net?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

I suspect that is true.  At the very least, it has to be a major psychological factor, because the expatriate Canadians I know here in Texas are no less charitable than anyone else I know.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 3, 2015)

I'm with Peter Singer on this. Since I read Practical Ethics at school I haven't seen a more rational approach on the subject, although it raised quite a controvery. Here's a summary of the relevant chapter:


> Until a fetus has the capacity for pain and pleasure (18 weeks), it's morally neutral whether to kill it. Until it has self-awareness (one month after birth), it should have the same rights as any other non-self-aware animal.



I quite clearly remember how, after I had left Church, our teacher in the ethics class (who was a catholic priest...) condemned his views as being 'unchristian'. When I challenged him by asking why that was relevant in a class about ethics, he told me in no unclear terms that in his class, we'd learn about 'Christian ethics'. Period.
So much for trying to escape Church doctrine...


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 3, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> True enough. It would certainly be interesting to see how it breaks down based on political leanings and religious declaration. An interesting point, that I came across a while back, was that Americans are more 'generous' in their charitable donations than are Canadians. Perhaps it has something to do with our feeling that we're already doing some good, via our taxes as applied to the social safety net?




Québec is the province who gives the least to charity. The rational that has been brought up is that we were use to giving to the Catholic Church which was in charge of redistribution. After the Quiet Revolution, the state took over the Church, the tithe became taxes and charity became social programs. It was a switch of institutions, but not habits.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Danger to the donor is never irrelevant.



But it is when it comes to women and pregnancy. Those who want to force women to complete their pregnancies disregard the risk they are taking and if they are taking these risks volontarely. A father can't be forced to give blood to his two years old child that needs the blood to live, but a woman should be forced to give her uterus to a zygote. It is a double standard.



> Remember, bone marrow transplants are a surgical procedure.  Even though they are low-risk compared to other surgeries, all surgeries carry some risk of death or serious injury.



Pregnancies also carry a risk of injury and death. Why should one be a choice, but not the other?



> In most- not all- cases, if the Dad says no, the kid still has a reasonable chance of survival if another donor can be found.  A familial donator is always preferred, but isn't necessary.



Survivability is not the crux of the issue here. It is the sovereignty the dad has over his body, that a woman cannot fully enjoy. Well in some part of the world. Here a woman can get an abortion anytime she wants, at least legally. You are not a person until your are fully born alive.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 3, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> That may be overstated.




It certainly was, thus the quotation marks. It is just that coat hangers are the poster child of the risk some women are willing to take to stop their pregnancies when nothing better is available.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 3, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Québec is the province who gives the least to charity. The rational that has been brought up is that we were use to giving to the Catholic Church which was in charge of redistribution. After the Quiet Revolution, the state took over the Church, the tithe became taxes and charity became social programs. It was a switch of institutions, but not habits.




I believe that it's also the most heavily taxed Province (though with the attendant benefits like very cheap child care), which would tend to line up with my premise.


----------



## Janx (Jul 3, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> True enough. It would certainly be interesting to see how it breaks down based on political leanings and religious declaration. An interesting point, that I came across a while back, was that Americans are more 'generous' in their charitable donations than are Canadians. Perhaps it has something to do with our feeling that we're already doing some good, via our taxes as applied to the social safety net?




Hard to say.  I pay taxes with no itemized deduction loophole magic.  Happily.  I grew up on welfare.  I know that the taxes of the good people of my country helped raise me up and now that I am upper middle class, it is my duty to return the favor.

I also know that if church charities were so awesome, they'd have solved poverty by now.  i trust centralized secular government to help more poor people without judging them than I do a church.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> i trust centralized secular government to help more poor people without judging them than I do a church.




The "Puritan work ethic" has had an unfortunate side effect.  If you push the message that work = financial success too strongly, you reinforce poverty = lazy by implication.  It can be quite a chore getting through to people that luck and opportunity (and other advantages) have a lot to do with success as well.


----------



## Janx (Jul 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The "Puritan work ethic" has had an unfortunate side effect.  If you push the message that work = financial success too strongly, you reinforce poverty = lazy by implication.  It can be quite a chore getting through to people that luck and opportunity (and other advantages) have a lot to do with success as well.




Thats probably the source of the trouble.  I know recall one of the later Freakonomics stories was about how in Germany way back during Martin Luther (the original) times, they found stats that indicated the protestants were more productive than the catholics.

So I'm guessing there was some kind of culture of work super hard going on.  With the side effect as you noted of what the inverse implies.

This is also probably a factor why some rich millionaires will brag about working hard all their life, 80+ work weeks and tell everyone else they are lazy.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> Thats probably the source of the trouble.  I know recall one of the later Freakonomics stories was about how in Germany way back during Martin Luther (the original) times, they found stats that indicated the protestants were more productive than the catholics.
> 
> So I'm guessing there was some kind of culture of work super hard going on.  With the side effect as you noted of what the inverse implies.




And, to be fair, when most of the world is based upon the action of human labor, it pretty much is true - human effort is absolutely required for success.

But once you have internal combustion engines and computers, and your society becomes efficient enough at creating real wealth, then you have a problem.  You can have more labor force available than you need.  Then, your labor or personal qualities may never be sufficient to gain you success, because there simply isn't a place for you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

> But it is when it comes to women and pregnancy.



No, risk of harm is ALWAYS a factor.



> Those who want to force women to complete their pregnancies disregard the risk they are taking and if they are taking these risks volontarely.




Playing mind reader again?  If so, you might want it consider another game, since you're astonishingly bad at it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And, to be fair, when most of the world is based upon the action of human labor, it pretty much is true - human effort is absolutely required for success.
> 
> But once you have internal combustion engines and computers, and your society becomes efficient enough at creating real wealth, then you have a problem.  You can have more labor force available than you need.  Then, your labor or personal qualities may never be sufficient to gain you success, because there simply isn't a place for you.




Tangenting off of that: we are starting to see claims that the newest labor-saving, modular, programmable robots slated for production are actually cheaper than some of the cheapest foreign labor out there, over the course of the useful life of the machine.  If they are correct, then we're at the cusp of the transition to a society envisioned by some Sci-Fi writers in which machines do most/all work, and man is left to find his own purpose.

The problem is, of course, nobody ever thinks about the problems of the transitional period.  What happens to society as the hundreds of thousands and of workers losing their jobs to automation today become hundreds of millions?  It probably won't be pretty.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The problem is, of course, nobody ever thinks about the problems of the transitional period.  What happens to society as the hundreds of thousands and of workers losing their jobs to automation today become hundreds of millions?  It probably won't be pretty.




It can be fine, if sharing the wealth is found to be acceptable.  The question is whether we can break the bonds of mental habits quickly enough.

Though, to be honest, I am not really worried.  We have other fish we'll need to fry first, though it would be a topic for another thread.


----------



## bone_naga (Jul 4, 2015)

I'm not a fan of abortion, but I also don't think it should be banned in cases of rape or incest. I think the SCOTUS ruling was a fair compromise on the matter, and regardless of what I think the issue is more or less settled. Regardless of your views, I think focusing on issues that can actually be changed are more important than looking for loopholes to create backdoor bans.

I also think that the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which puts me at odds with the more extreme members of the pro-life crowd, many of whom are also against birth control and sex education.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 5, 2015)

My opinion on abortion is essentially the same opinion I have about drugs, suicide, tattoos, piercings, organ donation, and sex toys: "It's my body, don't tell me what I can do to it, put into it, or take out of it."


----------



## Janx (Jul 5, 2015)

bone_naga said:


> I'm not a fan of abortion, but I also don't think it should be banned in cases of rape or incest. I think the SCOTUS ruling was a fair compromise on the matter, and regardless of what I think the issue is more or less settled. Regardless of your views, I think focusing on issues that can actually be changed are more important than looking for loopholes to create backdoor bans.
> 
> I also think that the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which puts me at odds with the more extreme members of the pro-life crowd, many of whom are also against birth control and sex education.




I think that's a fair position to have.  You don't need to ban abortion if you find ways to make it not needed.

I am appalled at the extremist end, because their "we so pure, never have sex" airs they put on is contradictory to the stats.


----------



## bone_naga (Jul 5, 2015)

Janx said:


> I am appalled at the extremist end, because their "we so pure, never have sex" airs they put on is contradictory to the stats.



Yeah, that really turned me off to the whole pro-life movement, even though some of them don't actually take it to that level.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Playing mind reader again?



Just reality. If women are forced to stay pregnant, then they take involontary risks to their health and life. Plain and simple.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Just reality. If women are forced to stay pregnant, then they take involontary risks to their health and life. Plain and simple.




The claim of mind-reading isn't based on that logic, but on the characterization that someone is "disregarding" the risk.  The common implication of that wording is that someone is dismissing or ignoring the risk, not considering it fully. 

So (rhetorical questions), if they didn't outright tell you, how do you know they are ignoring the risk, as opposed to carefully weighing the risk, and finding it acceptable?  How did you determine this without mind-reading?

We should, especially in political discussions, avoid asserting what's going on in other people's heads.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Exactly.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 6, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The claim of mind-reading isn't based on that logic, but on the characterization that someone is "disregarding" the risk.  The common implication of that wording is that someone is dismissing or ignoring the risk, not considering it fully.



Depends on context. If you say that someone cannot be forced to give blood because there are risks associated to it and risks need to be taken volontarely, but then say that pregnancy/labour can be forced even with the risks associated with those, it does _appear_ risks are disregarded in that specific case. Especially if we consider that pregnancy and labour have more risks of death and injury than giving blood. 

It might not be the case, but then the rational needs to be explained. Well, if the person still wants to participate. "Need" is relative. 

I fully understand that conversations about politics need to be done carefully, but if there are contradictions in someone's reasoning, saying so ain't mind reading and pointing it out isn't necessarely rude.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you say that someone cannot be forced to give blood because there are risks associated to it and risks need to be taken volontarely, but then say that pregnancy/labour can be forced even with the risks associated with those, it does _appear_ risks are disregarded in that specific case. Especially if we consider that pregnancy and labour have more risks of death and injury than giving blood.




Then you can say, "it appears that...," or "it looks like..." or "you seem to be saying...".

Leaving space for your own misinterpretation goes a *long* way.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 6, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...The problem is, of course, nobody ever thinks about the problems of the transitional period.  What happens to society as the hundreds of thousands and of workers losing their jobs to automation today become hundreds of millions?  It probably won't be pretty.




Add in the "who gets to quit first" problem, and you have a ready made violent uprising by those still working.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 6, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> Add in the "who gets to quit first" problem, and you have a ready made violent uprising by those still working.




I was thinking less in terms of quitting, more in terms of layoffs.  ESPECIALLY in those cultures/countries where the social safety net is weak.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 7, 2015)

If a man wants the baby carried to term and the woman doesn't, he can carry it in his own uterus.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

It's the woman's decision.
Period.
Hate to sound like a bumper sticker, but if you won't trust her with a choice, why trust her with a child? (Oh, I know, there's the option of putting the kid up for adoption...)
Too many times, attempts to restrict or limit abortion are used as tools to leverage restrictions.
I would love to live in a world where abortion wasn't necessary. But we don't, and it is. Stop trying to limit or restrict access.

Way too many of the arguments are based on religious bias or prejudice, or on "morality" arguments that I find highly dubious.
Honestly, unless you are directly involved, it is none of your business, any more than it is someone else's business what you do.


I truly wish people would take the time and energy they devote to what goes on in other people's bedrooms and focus it on what goes on in their own. They'd be a lot better off, and the world in general would be a better place.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was thinking less in terms of quitting, more in terms of layoffs.  ESPECIALLY in those cultures/countries where the social safety net is weak.




I think unequal quitting would result in more long term damage to society. Unequal layoffs end up meaning that the "haves" have jobs. Unequal quitting mean the "have nots" are the only workers.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> It's the woman's decision.
> Period.
> Hate to sound like a bumper sticker, but if you won't trust her with a choice, why trust her with a child? (Oh, I know, there's the option of putting the kid up for adoption...)
> Too many times, attempts to restrict or limit abortion are used as tools to leverage restrictions.
> ...




If it's scientifically/morally/ethically accepted that the fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection, it's really not that simple.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 7, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> If it's scientifically/morally/ethically accepted that the fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection, it's really not that simple.




It's impossible to scientifically prove that a fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection because deserving is a subjective concept.

Also, what is morally and ethically accepted is a criteria that doesn't hold much water for me.  After-all, slavery, the internment of German and Japanese Americans, forcing Native Americans into reservations, only male property-owners being allowed to vote, the brutality of the inquisition, throwing Christians to lions in the colloseum, burning witches and heretics and men of science who went against what the church taught were all things that were accepted in their time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> I think unequal quitting would result in more long term damage to society. Unequal layoffs end up meaning that the "haves" have jobs. Unequal quitting mean the "have nots" are the only workers.




High unemployment- especially if it is due to involuntary layoffs- lead to all kinds of economic chaos and societal instability & unrest.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> If it's scientifically/morally/ethically accepted that the fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection, it's really not that simple.




But it isn't. So it is.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 7, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> It's impossible to scientifically prove that a fetus is a person deserving of constitutional protection because deserving is a subjective concept.




1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?
2. Are all persons automatically deserving of constitutional protections?


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> High unemployment- especially if it is due to involuntary layoffs- lead to all kinds of economic chaos and societal instability & unrest.




Of course it does. It's just that serfdom tends to have a more lasting affect.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 7, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> 1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?
> 2. Are all persons automatically deserving of constitutional protections?




#1: I'm not sure.  It depends on what criteria one uses for determining personhood.

Edit: For example, if you had a sentient parasite growing within you, would that be able to meet the criteria as well?

#2: There are plenty of people who are already born and are currently full-grown adults who are not given the full protections of the constitution.  So, quite clearly, who is deserving appears to depend on who you ask even when personhood is not in doubt.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 7, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> 1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?
> 2. Are all persons automatically deserving of constitutional protections?




Even if you, hypothetically, could do so, you're still faced with the competing rights of persons. Does the state protect the rights of the fetus against its mother or does the state protect the rights of the mother against her fetus? Who gets priority and under what circumstances? Roe v Wade already drew a compromise between the two, but that compromise has pretty much been under assault from the day the decision was published.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> 1. Is it possible to scientifically "prove" (really, model) the criteria for when a person becomes a person?



Really? Please show what scientific studies back up your claim. If it is possible, then it has already been done.

2: US citizens are routinely denied their constitutional protections. Examples, sadly, will lead directly to an off-topic rant. Short version: read or watch "Dirty Wars" by Scahill.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> Really? Please show what scientific studies back up your claim. If it is possible, then it has already been done.




I think you misread that.  He appeared to me to be asking a question, not stating that it is possible.


----------



## innerdude (Jul 7, 2015)

I'm.....disheartened, saddened, I suppose, that in all this conversation, nothing has been said to effect that regardless of when you accept "personhood" in term of pregnancy, that every pregnancy represents the _potential _for human life.

Whether you believe "life" begins at conception, 18 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks, a pregnancy represents an opportunity to bring another sentient being into the world. To enjoy life experiences. To explore their creative potential. To enjoy the privilege of _living_.

How many works of fiction have we lost to abortion? How many world-renowned paintings? How many symphonies and arias, how many songs? Can loss of potential be quantified this way? I don't know.  

I personally believe that life begins at conception, but recognize that the world I live in has determined that until 24 weeks post-conception, an unborn child does not have a fundamental right to life. 

This will likely not change, and any attempts to do so are likely futile at this point. 

As a result, I can only offer the observation that under many circumstances, an abortion is tragedy, in the truest literal and metaphysical senses.

Obviously when the mother's life and health are at risk, or the child is the product of rape or incest, certainly a safe, legal abortion should be an available recourse. But in so many cases, an abortion is a tragic failure---and perhaps I am not fully without blame in the tragedy. 

It's a failure on the part of the man and woman who initiated the pregnancy to evaluate the risks and take even the easiest of steps to prevent it if the pregnancy is unwanted.

It's a failure on the part of government and yes, concerned citizens unwilling to pay increased taxes to support health choices, increased opportunities for medical care, and general financial support for a woman who might choose to carry a pregnancy to full term. I would gladly double my current tax burden if it meant an immediate 50% reduction in the number of abortions performed annually in the United States. 

In many cases it's a failure born of broken socioeconomics, of endemic poverty, lack of education and opportunity. 

I also recognize that in some cases it is not a failure of any of these, but is a function of a lifestyle choice consciously made. Perhaps it would be these I would most hope to change. 

If abortions will be deemed legal, so be it. My charge must then be to work to gently persuade those to choose a different course.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 7, 2015)

innerdude said:


> I'm.....disheartened, saddened, I suppose, that in all this conversation, nothing has been said to effect that regardless of when you accept "personhood" in term of pregnancy, that every pregnancy represents the _potential _for human life.






As does every egg and every sperm, hence this song:



[video=youtube;fUspLVStPbk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk[/video]


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 7, 2015)

Some thoughts:

1) There *are* cases where a difficult decision must be made, for example, cases where conjoined twins are separated, and a decision is made to give priority to one of the twins.  That's a rare case, but exists.  See, for example: http://pmj.bmj.com/content/77/911/593.full.

2) But not so extreme are ectopic pregnancies.  (There are probably lots of links; here is one chosen mostly at random: http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-ectopic-pregnancy.)  These types of pregnancies are not so rare, and might rarely lead to a viable pregnancy.

3) The odds of an ectopic pregnancy is about 1/50 (from what I read).  Common enough to require an answer as to what is to be done when it occurs.

4) I did a search for "non-viable" pregnancies, since ectopic pregnancies are but one example.  Distilling useful information would take a longer time than I have at present, so I have no additional comments.

5) This is arguably still in the realm of medical necessity.  Which leads to an initial question, of whether abortion in these types of cases is lawful or moral.

6) Also arguably, other abortions are chosen in cases where there is no medical necessity.  That is, when the mother and fetus are both healthy and the pregnancy is expected to reach term.  The same question can be asked in this case (if the separation of cases is accepted).

7) Some delineation can be made in elective cases: Eggs and Sperm in-vitro but not combined.  In-vitro fertilized eggs. Implanted fertilized eggs, then further delineations based on the transition of fertilized egg to a small bundle of cells, to a fetus, to a newly born fetus.

8) At what point in the transition of uncombined eggs and sperm to birth a transition occurs.  I believe that most people would consider the uncombined eggs and sperm to be not a person.  I also believe that most people would consider a nearly born fetus is a person.

9) One can try to determine when a person is present.  This seems difficult: The transition is gradual.  Fertilization and implantation do provide distinguishable steps, and there are key transitions during later development.  But, most seem to think that a just fertilized egg is not yet a person, putting the moment of transition in a difficult to place spot during a long and gradual development.

10) This looks at the basic biology.  There are other issues which relate to empathy and association.  I'll try to think through all of that and add to these notes.

11) There are still other issues which have to do with questions of control and decision making power.  Still more to think through.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## innerdude (Jul 7, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> As does every egg and every sperm, hence this song:




I know the song. And in certain circumstances find it amusing. In current context I think it's inappropriate and somewhat dismissive, given the overall tenor of the conversation at hand.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

> This is arguably still in the realm of medical necessity. Which leads to an initial question, of whether abortion in these types of cases is lawful or moral.



Those are classic examples of medical necessity.  Most people I know of would consider those to be both moral and thus, should remain legal.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 7, 2015)

While I admire your passion, the political discourse (or rather, what passes for political discourse in the US) takes the position that "naturally abortion should be allowed under ___ circumstances", and twists it to mean that it should be allowed ONLY under ___ circumstances.

How many criminals and sociopaths was the world denied because they were aborted?

Even the best birth control in the world is not 100% fool proof.

And, of course, I do not share the general conception that human life is something necessarily wonderful to be treasured. In fact, I think the planet would benefit greatly from a drastic reduction in human population. Say, down to half in the next 30 years?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 7, 2015)

innerdude said:


> I'm.....disheartened, saddened, I suppose, that in all this conversation, nothing has been said to effect that regardless of when you accept "personhood" in term of pregnancy, that every pregnancy represents the _potential _for human life.




You just demonstrated it is not a person, as it is not one yet. Like the egg has the potential to become a chicken, but it isn't a chicken, its an egg. Potentiality is meaningless. It is only killing actual people that is problematic. And event then...


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 7, 2015)

On a related note, free birth control reduces pregnancy. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/s...-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

Seems like a good way to reduce abortions as they fell by 42%. 



> They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

innerdude said:


> I'm.....disheartened, saddened, I suppose, that in all this conversation, nothing has been said to effect that regardless of when you accept "personhood" in term of pregnancy, that every pregnancy represents the _potential _for human life.
> 
> Whether you believe "life" begins at conception, 18 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks, a pregnancy represents an opportunity to bring another sentient being into the world. To enjoy life experiences. To explore their creative potential. To enjoy the privilege of _living_.
> 
> ...




Except that Freakonomics demonstrated the following:

an aborted baby tends to get born later by the same mom.  A woman who always wanted 3 kids, but gets pregnant in college accidentally, and terminates, will later be found to have 3 kids.

a woman who is seeking an abortion is not ready to have a kid.  The women who were forced to have kids or were stuck, having them did not have the means to do so well enough to increase the chances of success.  Abortions are not tending to kill Beethovens.  They are killing criminals.  Roe V. Wade ended the increasing crime wave from the 80's to the 90's when that batch of crooks, simply did not exist to come of age.

the potential for human life is great, except for the statistics that demonstrate that the prospects for a life being born to the conditions that a woman would choose abortion are dismal.

Luckily, there's a cure.  Birth control helps, as demonstrated by Colorado to cut down on abortions.  raising people out of poverty, so they aren't stuck having to make a difficult choice means that when they get pregnant, their kid has good prospects.  Crime rate goes down, abortion rate goes down.  People's success levels go up. Everybody wins.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 7, 2015)

As in most things, there is a range of experience. There are women who treat an abortion like a trip to the nails salon. There are also children, who have been raped by a family member, who are then forced to carry that child. I've seen both and the former is infuriating, while the latter is heart breaking.

But, as I said further up thread, it's not me who has to live with the decision.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> As in most things, there is a range of experience. There are women who treat an abortion like a trip to the nails salon. There are also children, who have been raped by a family member, who are then forced to carry that child. I've seen both and the former is infuriating, while the latter is heart breaking.
> 
> But, as I said further up thread, it's not me who has to live with the decision.




I would assume the former are the kind of "waste in the system" that we sort of have to put up with.  Like welfare cheats, speeders on the freeway, etc.

I might also imagine that the kind of woman who makes apparently casual trips to the clinic may not have the kind of life/job that getting emotional about it would help.  Imagine a prostitute or something controlled by a pimp.  She doesn't really have a choice if you look are her options as a knuckle sandwich or a beating.

My example doesn't have to be right, just plausible to understand that what we think is going on, isn't all there is.  I would bet that statistically we would not find too many women who enjoy getting abortions.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

> an aborted baby tends to get born later by the same mom. A woman who always wanted 3 kids, but gets pregnant in college accidentally, and terminates, will later be found to have 3 kids.




WHOA!  Let's be careful here, because that is a factually incorrect statement, and a tad warped because children are not fungible.

An aborted baby will never be born.  His/her mother may have other children, but the unique genetic combination and potential of THAT child is forever erased.


----------



## innerdude (Jul 7, 2015)

sabrinathecat said:


> And, of course, I do not share the general conception that human life is something necessarily wonderful to be treasured. In fact, I think the planet would benefit greatly from a drastic reduction in human population. Say, down to half in the next 30 years?






goldomark said:


> You just demonstrated it is not a person, as it is not one yet. Like the egg has the potential to become a chicken, but it isn't a chicken, its an egg. Potentiality is meaningless. It is only killing actual people that is problematic. And event then...




I think this demonstrates some of what I was trying to get at.

Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world? Even if I accept that an unborn child is not a "person" until 24 weeks post-conception (a notion I reject), is there truly no sense of wonder that the genetic material growing in a womb will, given enough time, grow into a sentient being like ourselves? 

Are we really so privileged, having been blessed by fate and good fortune to have grown into human adulthood, to dismiss off-hand the "potentiality" of a sentient life yet un-lived?

I guess I'm just suggesting that this is something to be seriously considered.

I also think the "chicken and egg" comparison is something of a straw man argument. Do we really want to make comparisons of the relative "potentiality" of personal thought, experience, creativity, and _animus_ of a chicken versus a human being?

However, as it appears that arguments for or against either side are unlikely to result in dialogue other than re-entrenching into existing positions, I personally am going to respectfully drop out of the conversation.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> WHOA!  Let's be careful here, because that is a factually incorrect statement, and a tad warped because children are not fungible.
> 
> An aborted baby will never be born.  His/her mother may have other children, but the unique genetic combination and potential of THAT child is forever erased.




True, but the statement, I think, talks more to the question of population size and control. I see posts on Facebook from a SuperCatholic friend of mine (he's a relatively recent convert after seeking a way to control an alcohol problem, I'm sure many of us know the type) lamenting that the US has x million fewer people because of abortion. Any finding that a woman will typically raise the same number of kids regardless of having a history of abortion undermines the population size aspect of that lament.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

I get that, but this is an area of discussion already filled with all kinds of rhetorical land mines.  Best not to add to the total.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 7, 2015)

innerdude said:


> I think this demonstrates some of what I was trying to get at.
> 
> Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world? Even if I accept that an unborn child is not a "person" until 24 weeks post-conception (a notion I reject), is there truly no sense of wonder that the genetic material growing in a womb will, given enough time, grow into a sentient being like ourselves?
> 
> ...




I think we all have to keep in mind that there frequently are trade-offs involved. What must the mother endure, depending on her circumstances, in order for that potentiality to be realized, particularly if the abortion she would otherwise seek is denied or unavailable? An abusive household? Life- or health-threatening complications? Poor health care? Emotional damage? All of these are possible costs of that potentiality and that's without considering the effect on the mother's psyche of society subjecting her to these conditions in favor of that potentiality should abortion be banned.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

innerdude said:


> Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world?




Perhaps.  That there are already *seven billion* of us probably figures into that.  While you are focused on this big thing of "potential", many others are probably focused on "likely reality".  The kid is going to be.. another person.  Not Mozart.  Not Einstein.  Just another person, with a middle-management job (or less, for many of the folks who are in the position of considering an abortion).  Yes, they would be unique, but the level of actual differences from other people on the planet isn't large - we are not a genetically diverse species, you know.  



> Even if I accept that an unborn child is not a "person" until 24 weeks post-conception (a notion I reject), is there truly no sense of wonder that the genetic material growing in a womb will, given enough time, grow into a sentient being like ourselves?




It is difficult to see the everyday as wondrous.  Seven billion times recently.  Headed to ten billion, and possibly more than the planet can sustain within one or two more lifetimes, with attendant crash and misery if we go too far.  More on this in a moment...



> Are we really so privileged, having been blessed by fate and good fortune to have grown into human adulthood, to dismiss off-hand the "potentiality" of a sentient life yet un-lived?




Oh, now you have to be careful.  You are, in effect, asking a young woman to give up much of *her* "life yet un-lived" to bring this kid into the world and support it.  It is not by any means clear that the potential life yet un-lived is a greater thing than her real and current life yet un-lived.  



> I guess I'm just suggesting that this is something to be seriously considered.




Yes, but there is another, just as serious consideration.  To steal from Thoreau, most folks live lives not of "potential", but of quiet desperation.  A child at the wrong time increases that desperation, and, whatever "potential" it has, the child will also feel that desperation.  You ask if it is fair to waste the potential.  You should also ask if it is fair to knowingly let it have that potential, only to have it squashed by already-known circumstance.

To be brutally honest - it seems inappropriate for us as a society to *force* people (either by law, or shame and societal pressure) to bring kids into the world but then take squat-all responsibility for that kid's life.  That's very much like being a dead-beat dad, isn't it?   Society must take responsibility for it's actions, just like the father.

Give us universal living wages, universal healthcare, and universal education opportunities, and then we can talk about forcing or pressuring people to bring kids into the world.  Until then, the choice should rest on the people who *do* take responsibility for that kid.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

> Give us universal living wages, universal healthcare, and universal education opportunities, and then we can talk about forcing or pressuring people to bring kids into the world. Until then, the choice should rest on the people who *do* take responsibility for that kid.




At the very least, if someone is forced to carry to term by the state, there has to be some kind of corresponding societal duty to help that person with the burden of raising that child OR a reasonable system of adoption/state-supported child care that doesn't treat the kids like puppies in a mill.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At the very least, if someone is forced to carry to term by the state, there has to be some kind of corresponding societal duty to help that person with the burden of raising that child OR a reasonable system of adoption/state-supported child care that doesn't treat the kids like puppies in a mill.




Not "OR".  AND.  She who is forced to bring it to term should be allowed to raise the child or not.  The child gets support whichever way the mother chooses.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> WHOA!  Let's be careful here, because that is a factually incorrect statement, and a tad warped because children are not fungible.
> 
> An aborted baby will never be born.  His/her mother may have other children, but the unique genetic combination and potential of THAT child is forever erased.




true, but from the perspective of the planet and the tax base, the overall headcount of born people increase is the same.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I think we all have to keep in mind that there frequently are trade-offs involved. What must the mother endure, depending on her circumstances, in order for that potentiality to be realized, particularly if the abortion she would otherwise seek is denied or unavailable? An abusive household? Life- or health-threatening complications? Poor health care? Emotional damage? All of these are possible costs of that potentiality and that's without considering the effect on the mother's psyche of society subjecting her to these conditions in favor of that potentiality should abortion be banned.




Yup.

Would it force an aspiring college student to drop out?  Or a high school student?  Teen moms have a bad track record for finishing school and succeeding in life.

InnerDude's not wrong in that a new fetus has potential.  But it also has probability based on the conditions surrounding it. And the as a society, we have to do math and science to make decisions.

Otherwise we end up with politics that deny the teen the abortion, shame her, block her from getting pre-natal support, try to shut down government assistance programs for the poor, etc.  That's not logical nor compassionate, which is the ironic thing about deciding to terminate a pregnancy.  There are a lot of big and small factors and having been there, I can tell you, it's not a decision made out of cruelty or pure cold calculation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Not "OR".  AND.  She who is forced to bring it to term should be allowed to raise the child or not.  The child gets support whichever way the mother chooses.



Yeah- poor sentence structuring on my part.  I meant to imply that both would be extant, and the mother could be able to choose one OR the other.

Or, differently put, society has a duty to not penalize the kids it forces parents to bear to term & delivery against their will, created by the act of using legal force to ensure that outcome.


----------



## Janx (Jul 7, 2015)

billd91 said:


> True, but the statement, I think, talks more to the question of population size and control. I see posts on Facebook from a SuperCatholic friend of mine (he's a relatively recent convert after seeking a way to control an alcohol problem, I'm sure many of us know the type) lamenting that the US has x million fewer people because of abortion. Any finding that a woman will typically raise the same number of kids regardless of having a history of abortion undermines the population size aspect of that lament.




that sounds like some folks want to increase headcount for headcount's sake.  Which is what the Quiverfull movement is apparently about (ala the Dugars).

Apparently the idea is to take over government/society/culture by outbreeding the competition. Based on the assumption that your kids all vote the same way you do (usually true).

I'm not a fan of the idea (given that we have zero kids yet), in that it tries to take over by way of breeding, rather than demonstration of superior ideas.  If only stupid people are breeding (to borrow from a song), then they will take over our culture, instead of letting the best ideas earn their way to prominence.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2015)

Re: Quiverfull


Janx said:


> I'm not a fan of the idea (given that we have zero kids yet), in that it tries to take over by way of breeding, rather than demonstration of superior ideas.  If only stupid people are breeding (to borrow from a song), then they will take over our culture, instead of letting the best ideas earn their way to prominence.



We all know how THAT oft-told tale ends.  See C.M. Kornbluth's _The Marching Morons_

And


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 8, 2015)

innerdude said:


> I think this demonstrates some of what I was trying to get at.
> 
> Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world? Even if I accept that an unborn child is not a "person" until 24 weeks post-conception (a notion I reject), is there truly no sense of wonder that the genetic material growing in a womb will, given enough time, grow into a sentient being like ourselves?
> 
> Are we really so privileged, having been blessed by fate and good fortune to have grown into human adulthood, to dismiss off-hand the "potentiality" of a sentient life yet un-lived?




If you're interested in that sort of potentials buy a lottery ticket.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: Quiverfull
> 
> We all know how THAT oft-told tale ends.  See C.M. Kornbluth's _The Marching Morons_
> 
> ...






Also see the Flynn Effect. Neither the Marching Morons nor Idiocracy bear any resemblance to reality. Instead they are the age old cry of "Things were better in my day! Now get off my lawn!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2015)

I did say it was an "oft-told tale"..


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 8, 2015)

innerdude said:


> Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world?



You might, but not everyone shares you views. This is why it should be about choice. 



> Even if I accept that an unborn child is not a "person" until 24 weeks post-conception (a notion I reject), is there truly no sense of wonder that the genetic material growing in a womb will, given enough time, grow into a sentient being like ourselves?



It doesn't matter. If it will become something, it isn't that thing right now. That is the nuance that is important. Heck, why must there be fertilization? Sperms and ova have the potential to become humans too. Why not protect them too? What about cloning? Every cell in our bodies has the potential to become another human? Is cutting nails murder? But personhood isn't really important in this debate. 

It always has been about sovereignty over one's body. If a father can't be forced to give his blood to his dying two years old who needs a blood transfusion to live, because he is the master of his body and decides what happens to it, why should a woman should be forced to give her uterus to a mass of cells who will die without it, whether it is 24h after conception or 24 weeks after conception? Why can't she be the master of her body, but other people can? The life of someone else doesn't matter in one case when sovereignty over one's body is involved, why should it in another?

Now if living adults where forced to give organs, blood and bone marrow to people who need them to live, there would be more coherence. Organ transplant is dangerous and risks should be taken volontarely? Ok, but pregnancies and labour also involved risks. Why not use the percentages of chance of death and injury from pregnancies and labour to see which organ donation is as or less dangerous and force those on to people too? But why use pregnancy as the barometer? Why not kidney transplants or liver transplants?



> I also think the "chicken and egg" comparison is something of a straw man argument. Do we really want to make comparisons of the relative "potentiality" of personal thought, experience, creativity, and _animus_ of a chicken versus a human being?



It is a analogy. But humans and chicken are both animals, this is why they can be compared to certain degrees. The idea here is to show that potentiality doesn't mean you are that something. Like a caterpilar ain't a butterfly, a zygote ain't a person. If you want to say that a zygote is a person, and not based on its potential to become one, that is another matter.


----------



## Janx (Jul 8, 2015)

innerdude said:
			
		

> Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world?




just to revisit this.

Who says people have lost a sense of wonder?  Everybody who WANTS to have a baby is likely in plenty of awe and eagerness to see that potential fulfilled.

It's the folks who have much bigger problems in life that see the path laid out leading to a dismal probability who want the right to forestall that until they are ready to truly release that potential.

people can use reason and have feelings all at the same time.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2015)

Janx said:


> people can use reason and have feelings all at the same time.




I daresay, people with feelings often really ought to use their reason at the same time.  Feelings, without reason, can be problematic in the extreme.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It doesn't matter. If it will become something, it isn't that thing right now. That is the nuance that is important.




Indeed.  When we start talking about potential, then we really need to consider opportunity cost, which is about maximizing potential.  



> It always has been about sovereignty over one's body.




Again, indeed.  Not that I see it so much here, but more broadly, large portions of the abortion debate are, under the surface, less about the child, and more about controlling women.  Even those who are really concerned about the child need to remember that they are asking to enforce control over a woman's body, and possibly the course of her life after that.  

Think very hard about what might give you/us the right to do that, and when it is appropriate to exercise it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2015)

Tangential news:

https://www.yahoo.com/health/title-x-the-federal-family-planning-program-is-123492140982.html


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 9, 2015)

Republicans in Congress are like a bunch of kids having a tantrum. They're just determined to make sure people get to suffer.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 10, 2015)

I personally think this subject might have the religion tag as well as politics.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 10, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I personally think this subject might have the religion tag as well as politics.




These days I'm having trouble thinking of something that shouldn't.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 10, 2015)

Taxing sugary drinks is pretty non-religious.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Taxing sugary drinks is pretty non-religious.




... until you realize that it's a tool of the liberal social elites to rob God fearing Mid-Westerners of their income, by selling high fructose corn syrup to soda companies, thereby weakening their political power.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> ... until you realize that it's a tool of the liberal social elites to rob God fearing Mid-Westerners of their income, by selling high fructose corn syrup to soda companies, thereby weakening their political power.




Yeah! what he says!



Wait, what exactly did you just say?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 10, 2015)

He said liberals are trying to asphyxiate Christians economically.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 10, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> Yeah! what he says!
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what exactly did you just say?




Not exactly sure. I think that I heard Rush Limburger say it.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 10, 2015)

I will keep my political orientation to myself, in all honesty. I tend to have my cha as my dump stat when it comes to politics and religion. So on that. I tip hat to you all.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 10, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I will keep my political orientation to myself, in all honesty. I tend to have my cha as my dump stat when it comes to politics and religion. So on that. I tip hat to you all.




Then you clearly missed your calling and should be either a politician, or talk show host.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jul 10, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Then you clearly missed your calling and should be either a politician, or talk show host.




I will not be duped.




I will not be dragged in!




I am now walking away.


----------



## nightwind1 (Jul 13, 2015)

bone_naga said:


> Yeah, that really turned me off to the whole pro-life movement, even though some of them don't actually take it to that level.



One of the reasons I never refer to it as "pro-life"- because most of them aren't. It's more properly anti-choice.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jul 13, 2015)

innerdude said:


> I'm.....disheartened, saddened, I suppose, that in all this conversation, nothing has been said to effect that regardless of when you accept "personhood" in term of pregnancy, that every pregnancy represents the _potential _for human life.
> 
> Whether you believe "life" begins at conception, 18 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks, a pregnancy represents an opportunity to bring another sentient being into the world. To enjoy life experiences. To explore their creative potential. To enjoy the privilege of _living_.
> 
> ...





What you should do is spend your time improving the state of adoption/child protective services. If those systems weren't the clusterbleep that they are, and if people who purported to be 'pro-life' actually cared about children after birth then the alternatives to abortion would be much more appealing. But 'pro-life' really means pro-birth. After that you are on your own and no church cares about you like they do the unborn.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 14, 2015)

cmad1977 said:


> What you should do is spend your time improving the state of adoption/child protective services. If those systems weren't the clusterbleep that they are, and if people who purported to be 'pro-life' actually cared about children after birth then the alternatives to abortion would be much more appealing. But 'pro-life' really means pro-birth. After that you are on your own and no church cares about you like they do the unborn.




You're on the right lines but don't go far enough.

If you actually give a damn about abortion, tackling the supply just increases the sales of wire coathangers. You need to tackle the demand.

First, you make access to contraception trivial. You hand it out for free. And as reliable methods as possible. If you oppose contraception you are responsible for the abortions that this leads to. (And yes, I'm looking especially at the Roman Catholic Church here - and other religiously motivated people).

Second you make it economic to keep the child. This starts with paid maternity leave. You don't have paid maternity leave then for many it simply isn't economic for many women to take the time off pregnancy would require. (Paternity leave also helps but is nowhere near as necessary of course).

Third you make it economic to have the child. Single payer healthcare, free at point of delivery. So affording the hospital stay isn't a problem.

Fourth you make it economic to raise the child. Welfare/Child Benefit at a pretty high level.  So the mother isn't forced to give the kid up for adoption.

Fifth you support the adoption system.

And most so-called pro-life campaigners oppose1-4 on this list. All of which do more to lower the abortion rate than any amount of talking online, protesting, or shooting doctors ever will.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2015)

I'll bite: I'm pro-life, and I do not oppose 1-4 in their entireties.

I'm not a fan of birth control, but since not everyone is a Catholic like me, believe the safest ones should at least be available OTC.

I favor paid family- not maternity- leave.  Some families, it makes more sense for Dad to be the caregiver because Mom is Breadwinner #1.  What I am unsure of is the amount of said leave and what percentage of base pay it should be.

I don't think maternity care (prenatal and postnatal) should be universally free.  That is probably NOT economically feasible.  Instead, I'd add a simple means test: the less maternity care you can afford, the more said care gets subsidized.

I've seen some wonderful ideas from all over the world about governmental postnatal programs.  There is one Scandinavian country that sends every newborn's mother a box full of vitamins, a blanket, and other goods...and the box doubles as some kind of baby care device (I forget exactly what).  They've been doing it for decades, and it dropped several categories of infant health/mortality issues in their country by statistically significant amounts for not a lot of money.

Our adoption/welfare/foster care system is a hot mess.

The devil is, of course, always in the details...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 16, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll bite: I'm pro-life, and I do not oppose 1-4 in their entireties.
> 
> I'm not a fan of birth control, but since not everyone is a Catholic like me, believe the safest ones should at least be available OTC.




I could comment on the inane logic of the Minority Report on the Pontifical Commmission on Birth Control. But instead I'm going to say yay - accepting a lack of contraception as a spiritual discipline is about the best you can make of that doctrine.



> I favor paid family- not maternity- leave.  Some families, it makes more sense for Dad to be caregiver because Mom is Breadwinner #1.  What I am unsure of is the amount of said leave and what percentage of base pay it should be.




No argument here. Paid maternity leave is a bare minimum.



> I don't think maternity care (prenatal and postnatal) should be universally free.  That is probably NOT economically feasible.  Instead, I'd add a simple means test: the less maternity care you can afford, the more said care gets subsidized.




As a healthcare statistician (albeit a UK one) I'm going to disagree with you. Single payer is a _lot_ cheaper than the alternatives - and maternity care is a drop in the ocean when compared to either elderly care or dialysis (both of which the US government covered even pre-Obamacare). That said, with the litigious culture (in part caused by not having single payer healthcare so if you get hurt you need to pay for the follow up medical expenses somehow) obstetricians are hideously expensive in the US as malpractice insurance for an obstetrician with no history of incidents could be as much as $150k/year.



> I've seen some wonderful ideas from all over the world about governmental postnatal programs.  There is one Scandinavian country that sends every newborn's mother a box full of vitamins, a blanket, and other goods...and the box doubles as some kind of baby care device (I forget exactly what).  They've been doing it for decades, and it dropped several categories of infant health/mortality issues in their country by statistically significant amounts for not a lot of money.




Agreed 



> Our adoption/welfare/foster care system is a hot mess.




I know nothing here.



> The devil is, of course, always in the details...




As ever


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 16, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> Single payer is a _lot_ cheaper than the alternatives - and maternity care is a drop in the ocean when compared to either elderly care or dialysis (both of which the US government covered even pre-Obamacare).




I don't think this is necessarily true. Single _supplier_ is a far safer bet to drop per-person cost for medical care than single _payer_. Single payer without the ability - or even the need - to impose top-down price controls doesn't make things better.

Beyond that, single payer for medical insurance doesn't do anything to address the fact that insurance (meant to spread economic risk among large amounts of people) is a poor way to effectively deal with services that are inherently not economically risky (like, say, pre-natal care).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2015)

> Single payer is a lot cheaper...




I didn't say it wasn't.  What I said was I don't know that it is economical for the single payer should be on the hook for 100% of this particular bill, which isn't precisely the same thing.

Any single payer system is tax driven.  As I understand them, most also have a private option: you can always pay to see a private healthcare provider entirely at your own expense.

What I'm thinking is that you have a single payer system that subsidizes treatments wherever you go, rather than pays 100% in one facility and zero in another.  Patient choice of healtchcare provider is maintained. Number of outlets is kept high.  Wait times are minimized. The means test prevents more expensive healthcare providers from draining the system- you want to charge more for a service than is approved, the patient is on the hook for the extra- but not entire- amount.

A means test also means that the more money you earn, the more you pay into the system, and the less you get out.  Which means the people least able to pay need not fear the single payer being out of funds caring for the children of those who are not at risk of being harmed by money-based healthcare decision making.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> Single _supplier_ is a far safer bet to drop per-person cost for medical care than single _payer_.




What?  Single supplier = monopoly.  When, in the history of economics, has a monopoly led to lower costs for the consumer?



> Beyond that, single payer for medical insurance doesn't do anything to address the fact that insurance (meant to spread economic risk among large amounts of people) is a poor way to effectively deal with services that are inherently not economically risky (like, say, pre-natal care).




Agreed.  

The "insurance" model is designed, and works well for, cases that are relatively low-probability, but high cost if they do happen.  This is a poor model to use for health maintenance, which everyone needs, and is relatively low cost.

There are things in health that can work by the insurance model - like dealing with broken bones, or cancer when you are young.  But getting your vaccinations, or antibiotics for bronchitis in the winter, or prenatal care aren't among them.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 16, 2015)

Umbran said:


> There are things in health that can work by the insurance model - like dealing with broken bones, or cancer when you are young.  But getting your vaccinations, or antibiotics for bronchitis in the winter, or prenatal care aren't among them.




That may be, but single payer health programs aren't just about protecting people from catastrophic medical costs. They're also about making sure that medical care, including preventive care, is available to anybody who needs it regardless of their ability to pay for it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2015)

Single payer is cheaper- when the payer is a government- has all kinds of advantages of scale, internal efficiency and so forth.  These are present in a standard monopoly as well, but the difference is that a standard monopoly has an inherent profit motive that can go unchecked by anyone except the government.

If a government monopoly acts up, "we, the people" can put our foot down. 

But generally, government monopolies don't usually operate nearly as cutthroat a manner as private ones do: their predisposition to behave like the bureaucracies they are tends to trump that behavior.  They're not hunting to squeeze out more money from the market, they're trying to be better at following their own rules as set down by their regulators.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 16, 2015)

Enkhidu said:


> I don't think this is necessarily true. Single _supplier_ is a far safer bet to drop per-person cost for medical care than single _payer_. Single payer without the ability - or even the need - to impose top-down price controls doesn't make things better.
> 
> Beyond that, single payer for medical insurance doesn't do anything to address the fact that insurance (meant to spread economic risk among large amounts of people) is a poor way to effectively deal with services that are inherently not economically risky (like, say, pre-natal care).




Single supplier = monopoly. If you're going to have a single supplier you want one that isn't financially driven (e.g. the government).

What single payer does do is flattens the administration costs and seriously cuts doctors overheads. To know what medical treatment to give, an American doctor needs to know what insurance scheme you are on. And then there's the ridiculousness that is billing; I did some checking a while back and discovered that almost 75% of a hospital bill in the US is padding they don't expect to receive. And paying people to haggle with the insurance companies.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was I don't know that it is economical for the single payer should be on the hook for 100% of this particular bill, which isn't precisely the same thing.
> 
> Any single payer system is tax driven. As I understand them, most also have a private option: you can always pay to see a private healthcare provider entirely at your own expense.
> 
> What I'm thinking is that you have a single payer system that subsidizes treatments wherever you go, rather than pays 100% in one facility and zero in another. Patient choice of healtchcare provider is maintained. Number of outlets is kept high. Wait times are minimized. The means test prevents more expensive healthcare providers from draining the system- you want to charge more for a service than is approved, the patient is on the hook for the extra- but not entire- amount.




And you have a multi-tier system with good money driving out bad. You have patient choice in the UK. You have longer waiting times in the US than the UK unless you have a gold-plated medical plan (like much of the NHS our current government seems intent on fixing that).

A means test also means that the more money you earn, the more you pay into the system, and the less you get out. Which means the people least able to pay need not fear the single payer being out of funds caring for the children of those who are not at risk of being harmed by money-based healthcare decision making.[/QUOTE]



Umbran said:


> What? Single supplier = monopoly. When, in the history of economics, has a monopoly led to lower costs for the consumer?




The NHS.

But that's because the NHS is not in any way, shape, or form measured on profits. It's given a set amount of money and told to treat patients for that. And great care is taken to insulate consultants from the direct impact of money.



> The "insurance" model is designed, and works well for, cases that are relatively low-probability, but high cost if they do happen. This is a poor model to use for health maintenance, which everyone needs, and is relatively low cost.




Which are precisely the things the "Free at the point of delivery, paid for out of general taxation" model works _really_ well for


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 16, 2015)

Umbran said:


> What?  Single supplier = monopoly.  When, in the history of economics, has a monopoly led to lower costs for the consumer?




Neonchameleon got it below already - when the supplier is willing to operate at break even or a loss. Governments or non-profits both fall into that category.




			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> That may be, but single payer health programs aren't just about protecting people from catastrophic medical costs. They're also about making sure that medical care, including preventive care, is available to anybody who needs it regardless of their ability to pay for it.




Sort of nitpicky here, but even preventative medical care can be economically catastrophic costs for the very poor.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> And then there's the ridiculousness that is billing; I did some checking a while back and discovered that almost 75% of a hospital bill in the US is padding they don't expect to receive.





There was a time, a few years back, that my wife and I were temporarily without health insurance, and my wife needed some care.  The bill hit - it was survivable, but I called the hospital billing department and asked about perhaps setting up a payment plan, to make it more manageable.  I spoke with a fine lady, who, upon hearing that the whole bill was coming out of my pocket said, "Hold on a minute," I heard some fast typing over the phone, and she continued, "Okay, your balance is now $X", where X was slightly less than *half* of what I thought I was going to have to deal with.  And this was without my making any complaint on the matter - the hospital simply had so much padding on those particular items that they could cut us some slack.  I suspect they did it because lowering the bill means people are more likely to be able to pay completely and on time, which means less hunting down of small balances by the billing department.  Either that, or this was just one really nice lady with rights to do stuff.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 17, 2015)

Umbran said:


> There was a time, a few years back, that my wife and I were temporarily without health insurance, and my wife needed some care.  The bill hit - it was survivable, but I called the hospital billing department and asked about perhaps setting up a payment plan, to make it more manageable.  I spoke with a fine lady, who, upon hearing that the whole bill was coming out of my pocket said, "Hold on a minute," I heard some fast typing over the phone, and she continued, "Okay, your balance is now $X", where X was slightly less than *half* of what I thought I was going to have to deal with.  And this was without my making any complaint on the matter - the hospital simply had so much padding on those particular items that they could cut us some slack.  I suspect they did it because lowering the bill means people are more likely to be able to pay completely and on time, which means less hunting down of small balances by the billing department.  Either that, or this was just one really nice lady with rights to do stuff.




That's not just a nice lady, that's a pretty common element of hospital billing and revenue. If they're charging a private insurer, they'll charge substantially more than they will someone paying out of pocket. They use fatter fees from private insurers to balance the tighter reinbursements from Medicare and Medicaid and the write-offs from people who can't pay the bills while still keeping revenue up. And the insurance companies, of course, pass the cost of those fatter bills on to their subscribers.


----------



## Janx (Jul 17, 2015)

Umbran said:


> There was a time, a few years back, that my wife and I were temporarily without health insurance, and my wife needed some care.  The bill hit - it was survivable, but I called the hospital billing department and asked about perhaps setting up a payment plan, to make it more manageable.  I spoke with a fine lady, who, upon hearing that the whole bill was coming out of my pocket said, "Hold on a minute," I heard some fast typing over the phone, and she continued, "Okay, your balance is now $X", where X was slightly less than *half* of what I thought I was going to have to deal with.  And this was without my making any complaint on the matter - the hospital simply had so much padding on those particular items that they could cut us some slack.  I suspect they did it because lowering the bill means people are more likely to be able to pay completely and on time, which means less hunting down of small balances by the billing department.  Either that, or this was just one really nice lady with rights to do stuff.




I'd say you got lucky.  Here's some stories I know personally or from the person directly:

a coworker had his first kid while he was a contractor.  No insurance.  Bill was double what his second kid was with the exact same procedures (c-section).  Only difference was he had insurance.  The hospital gave the insurance the agreed upon rate and fleeced the uninsured for the higher amount.

I have 3 kidney stones.  Doc sent me to get the bathtub sonic stone-outame procedure scheduled.  Day before the procedure, the hospital calls me asking how I'd like to pay the $10,000.  Not a peep was mentioned when I was booking it that my insurance (aetna) wouldn't cover it.  I canceled the procedure as I already have 2 car payments, each for that much money.  Aetna can pay more that $10,000 when the stones try to kill me in a more expensive way.  I expect to die of cancer or something thanks to their pattern of coverage.

I was sent to get a sleep study for my snoring.  Since I don't go to the doctor a lot, I haven't touched my deductible.  So I'm told that'll be a straight $2000 for that.  Never mind that this required getting a pre-auth from the insurance, and is effectively to see if I have sleep apnea so I don't die and cost them more money.

One of my clients runs a business of scheduling patients for doctors to get diagnostics (MRIs, etc).  It's free to the referring doctor.  The client tries to find a good match for the patient to what place to run the test.  Here's the catch.  If they send you to MajorHospital that they have a contract with, they pay the hospital $500 for the MRI for you, and they file on your insurance for $2000 (that's roughly what insurance will pay on an MRI), making a tidy $1500 per patient they send there.  They don't make money if they send you to some other rinky dink place near your house.  They don't try to railroad you to the big place, but they are plenty happy when they can.  One of the many reasons insurance is so pricey, is because of this kind of pricing shenanigans.

A buddy of mine did a stint working for LabCorp (or one of those).  His team got new training on a new test that was developed to detect cancer in your poop.  Then suddenly, that project was canceled.  Why?  Because all the hospitals had just spent a couple million on buttprobe machines and didn't want to invalidate the expenditure with a simple $30 test.

Just a few examples of the screwed up nature of the healthcare industry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 17, 2015)

> Just a few examples of the screwed up nature of the healthcare industry.




I'll give you more: a few years ago, my paternal grandmother had to undergo serious surgery.  On the bill, the surgeon and the anesthesiologist- the guy doing the procedure, and the guy keeping her breathing and her heart beating- each charged $1500 for their services.

The InsCo compensated each $150, 1/10th of their fee.  That wasn't enough to cover costs.  And they had no remedy to recover the remaining 90% from her.

My father is in much the same boat: what he charges is almost irrelevant- the InsCos pay him what they feel.  The reason he won't talk certain plans is because their compensation is completely divorced from his reality.

This kind of thing, BTW, is one of the reasons pure single payer is a hard sell in the USA: it's tough to work in a field in which you set a price based on your costs & making a profit, but someone else decides what you'll get paid.  That is economic nonsense.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 17, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...This kind of thing, BTW, is one of the reasons pure single payer is a hard sell in the USA: it's tough to work in a field in which you set a price based on your costs & making a profit, but someone else decides what you'll get paid.  That is economic nonsense.




Eh, you get the same problems when you look at the mega-corps/supplier relationship. Walmart has been doing this for years.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 17, 2015)

While I would have thought this topic fell under those that were why political discussions were forbidden in the first place, I will bite I suppose...

I would like to go back to a point raised in one of the first posts that I am not sure was addressed later on: whether the (potential) father has a right to know. Actually, a related second point: whether this debate concerns men at all and women who cannot conceive.

I can accept perhaps that a man would not have a legal right to know for prudential and safety reasons pertaining to potential mothers that unfortunately persist in our society. However, I think a man does have a moral right to know. Rights conflict all the time, both legal and moral, and the right to safety is going to be the dominant one here. But to deny this knowledge to someone out of hand, when there is no expectation of risk to oneself, is neither neutral nor good morally. My go to inspiration on the abortion issue is Rosalind Hursthouse's classic _Virtue Theory and Abortion_, and it is from here I derive a notion that to treat men as intrinsically unimportant or unworthy in this process is to actively diminish their moral potential.

This goes to the issue of who should have an opinion on things as well. We can see plainly that many people in the World are just terrible and bent on making living well impossible for others. This has made discussion of feminism and women's right a fraught subject. But I am not sure I can think of _any_ other field where someone would claim that biological capability in some kind of natural limiter on mental capability. The move to remove men from the subject is neither driven by natural or moral suitability, but rather by the practical difficulty that men in positions of power have created. And if someone wants to suggest men butt out of this debate they should frame it in these terms _every time_. To do otherwise is to just commit to specious reasoning.  

Finally, a second-hand anecdote: I remember reading in the paper not to long ago that at one of those "pro-life" protests in Ottawa (I think it was Canada, and our capital at that), there was a group of younger people going on about how they were the "survivors" of the "abortion holocaust" . Which is, to my mind, complete and utter nonsense. Everyone born after abortion became legal is in fact the _product_ of the "abortion holocaust" . Women having abortions was one of the infinite number of necessary conditions of their existence. That is just causality; you know, to tie this to what I was saying in that other thread.


----------

