Scott Walker: Life of Fetus More Important than Life of a Mother?

Even the Roman Catholic Church accepts abortion to save the life of a mother

WashingtonPost

As last night's Republican top card presidential candidate debate made clear, all of the men standing on that stage are ardently pro-life. One (non) answer stood out though. From the transcript:

KELLY: Governor Walker, you've consistently said that you want to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. You recently signed an abortion law in Wisconsin that does have an exception for the mother's life, but you're on the record as having objected to it. Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion, and with 83 percent of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?

WALKER: Well, I'm pro-life, I've always been pro-life, and I've got a position that I think is consistent with many Americans out there in that…

WALKER: …in that I believe that that is an unborn child that's in need of protection out there, and I've said many a time that that unborn child can be protected, and there are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of that mother. That's been consistently proven.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has a radical position in terms of support for Planned Parenthood, I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…

WALKER: …I've got a position that's in line with everyday America.

Actually, according to polling data, Walker does not have a position that is line with everday America, at least with regard to the idea that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, including those cases where it can be used to save the life of a mother. For example, the most recent Gallup Poll reports that only 19 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

The governor of Wisconsin's position apparently makes him stricter than the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church permits using abortion as a medical technique to save the life of a mother, e.g., cases of ectopic pregnancy. The New Zealand Catholic pro-life organization summarizes:

The Catholic Church along with most other religions, recognises the moral principal of what is called the "double effect."

In the case of abortion, this means that any treatment done to save the life of the mother that also results in the death of an unborn child is not truly an abortion, since the death of the child was not the primary intention.

In such a case, even if the death of the child is a foregone conclusion, the death was an indirect effect of the surgical procedure.

Actually, I suspect that Walker simply hasn't thought deeply about this issue and gave a knee-jerk response so as to not appear to be flip-flopping.

See Reason's debate over abortion below:

Comments

[sarcasmic]

What does Trump think?

[JWatts]

Megyn Kelley specifically asked. Trump was formerly pro-abortion (when it was politically convenient) and is now anti-abortion (when it is politically convenient) . So basically, Trump doesn't much care one way or the other.

[JWatts]

"all of the men standing on that stage are ardently pro-life."

Wrong Bailey. It's clear that Trump was not ardently pro-life. There might have been others, because most of them weren't pressed on the issue.

[Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper]

But what's his position on deep-dish versus actual pizza?

[mad.casual]

Nobody wants to hear your doddering old conservative white guy opinion about "traditional" pizza. Deep-dish has self-identified as pizza for decades now. Get over it.

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

See mad.casual UTTERLY DESTROY Almanian.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

It's not pizza.

Find another term for it!

[Rufus J. Firefly]

Despite my liking it.

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about this.

[Mr. Paulbotto]

We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about this.

Not only is it pizza, but New York and California style pizzerias now must bake deep dish or cease being public accommodations.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Civil Union Italian soup?

[Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper]

u mad, brah?

[Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper]

CAPTION for the video: "You must be THIS big to not get aborted"

YEAH, I SAID IT

[Fist of Etiquette]

Actually, I suspect that Walker simply hasn't thought deeply about this issue and gave a knee-jerk response so as to not appear to be flip-flopping.

Or, he recognizes that the fetus is a pure being, while the mother has had sex at least once, possibly out of wedlock. We just don't know, but we might as well bet on the one that's not a possible slut yet.

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

I thought the Bible says that if the mother is a slut then the baby defaults to slut.

[Lord Humungus]

It's sluts all the way down.

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

That's my preference.

[Rich]

All the way down on their *knees*!

/Megyn Kelly

[WoodchipsandDerp]

Actually, he was asked this question again later and I think the gist of his answer was that it's a false choice given medical advances. In other words, he thinks there is no scenario where birth/Cesarean section = death of the mother.

[sarcasmic]

I suppose from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, this might make sense. If the abortion causes the woman to be barren, as they sometimes do, then she will not further the species. Whereas the child might. Though I doubt he's looking at it from that point of view.

[mad.casual]

Well, there's the other, "since you're going to murder me on all the hills I stand on progressively, I better erect more hills" utilitarian point of view too.

I mean the bill he signed was for the 'after the 20 week' mark and only punishes the people/doctors who perform the abortions but, you know 20% is a minority and Reason is fine with oppressing them as long as they're on the wrong team.

[John]

I don't think that is what he is saying at all.

..in that I believe that that is an unborn child that's in need of protection out there, and I've said many a time that that unborn child can be protected, and there are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of that mother. That's been consistently proven.

First, he is right, the unborn child is what is in need of protection here. Abortions are legal. The mother's life is already protected. Walker is not saying that the child is more important. He is saying that right now we need to protect the unborn child because they have no protection under current law.

Second, he explicitly acknowledges the equal importance of the mother. He never says the mother is less important. He says we need to look at alternatives that protect the mother without killing the child. Nothing about that statement implies that the child's life is more important.

[John]

Bailey is just wrong here. Walker never said that abortion should not be allowed when necessary to save the life of the mother. I am not a doctor so maybe he is wrong that there are alternatives to abortion in many cases that would save the life of the mother and the child. I would be curious to hear the facts regarding that.

You could also rightly accuse Walker of dodging the question a bit. He never directly answers the question of "what about cases where the choices are let the mother die or have an abortion". He dodges it by not talking about those cases and only pointing to cases where there are alternatives to abortion. Again, I would like to know just how often it really is the life of the mother or the life of the child and what exactly these alternatives to abortion are. That is the real issue here. Instead of dealing with that Bailey just smears Walker for saying something he clearly didn't.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Responding to one's own post is a clear sign of overexcitement on an issue.

"Again, I would like to know just how often it really is the life of the mother or the life of the child and what exactly these alternatives to abortion are. That is the real issue here."

You wanted a different question than the one he punted on. Seems he did too.

[John]

No dipshit, It is called having a post that is beyond the 1500 character limit. That can happen when you actually think about the issue rather than just posting bullshit that screws up the thread like you do.

And yes, the question was stupid and completely lacked any factual basis. You can't have a debate about whether abortion should be legal in cases of it being necessary for the life of the mother without first understanding if and when and how often that actually happens. Without those facts you are just engaging in bullshit juvenile speculation, which since that is about all you are capable of, I am sure you find sufficient. Others of us, however don't.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"the question was stupid and completely lacked any factual basis"

It lacked a factual basis? There has never been an instance in which it came down between abortion and the life of the mother? Let's see some proof of this 'fact' John.

"Without those facts you are just engaging in bullshit juvenile speculation"

So questions like 'if Iran does X, what will you do' or 'if the President doesn't do Y, what should be done' get you equally upset? I mean, don't take a look at the Bush Dukkakis debate where Dukkakis was asked about what if his loved one was murdered.

[JWatts]

"Responding to one's own post is a clear sign of overexcitement on an issue."

I don't see that John responded to his own post other than in the most pedantic sense. He posted and then decided to add additional comments.

By the way, that's something you've done many times.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"By the way, that's something you've done many times."

I don't think I've reply to this to my own comment, but since you know otherwise I'll be happy to stand corrected when you present some evidence of it.

[sarcasmic]

Responding to one's own post is a clear sign of overexcitement on an issue.

Or maybe he had a thought that was too long for the character limit, and split it into two posts. Idiot.

[Lee G]

We're so excited.

/Pointer Sister

[HazelMeade]

The problem is Walker seems to have bought into some myths about ectopic pregnancies that the anti-abortion side has been putting out - that it's possible to transplant them. It is not. It is almost never possible to transplant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. Maybe if it was caught VERY early at around implantation, but they are almost never identified that quickly. Medical technology just isn't that good, and most women don't know they are pregnant until well past that point.

Ectopic pregnancies are not viable, and if they are not removed, they generally rupture and cause severe internal bleeding, which can kill the mother and cause permanent internal organ damage, including to her reproductive system.
This idea that somehow you could treat the mother while allowing a fetus to grow outside the uterus is a dangerous fantasy.

Maybe someday medical technology will be at the point that it's possible to transplant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. I'm sure that will make a lot of women happy. But we're not going to just let women die from ruptured embyros or let their reproductive tract be destroyed by a non-viable fetus.

[Lee G]

If what you're saying is true, then Walker is a fool who hasn't spoken to anyone on the issue outside of the anti-abortion lobby.

[John]

That is an interesting point Hazel. And the point that should be made about this. As I said, I am not a doctor and I have no idea if what Walker is saying is true or not. If he is full of shit and there often are no "alternatives" to abortion, then that is a legit criticism of Walker and the one Bailey should be making.

That said, even if what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to think it is not, that really only applies to non viable fetuses, as in before 22 weeks or whatever. If Walker thinks life begins at conception and abortion shouldn't be allowed even early term when the life of the mother is threatened, I think he is wrong. His being wrong, however, doesn't mean much since there is zero chance of any President banning all early term abortions.

[greyegg]

A simple Google search would have answered your question.

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: 'Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.'

Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

'There are certain cases where ending the pregnancy is the only option, cases where it would be putting the mother's life at risk to continue the pregnancy,' she says."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....h/1644839/

[Lee G]

Jesus. They are pushing that ectopics can be transplanted.

It staggers the mind that someone would believe that since most women who get ectopics are trying to get pregnant. The incentive to transplant them is there, they would be doing it if they could.

[Just say Nikki]

Yeah. There are really no words for this.

[HazelMeade]

Exactly. You get ectopic pregnancies if you have blocked tubes, mostly.
I don't know if "most" ectopic pregnancies are in women trying to conceive, but it's definitely a problem for women who have problems getting pregnant. If it was possible, there would be a lot of money in doing it.

[Just say Nikki]

I don't think that is what he is saying at all.

You're flat wrong. Kelly was clear: would you really let a woman die before you allowed to have an abortion?

And Walker was clear. Yes, he would.

[John]

I don't see how you can get that.

Well, I'm pro-life, I've always been pro-life, and I've got a position that I think is consistent with many Americans out there in that...

WALKER: ...in that I believe that that is an unborn child that's in need of protection out there, and I've said many a time that that unborn child can be protected, and there are many other alternatives that can also protect the life of that mother. That's been consistently proven.

The first paragraph is just a generic "I am pro life" and not an answer. The second paragraph I dealt with above. At worst he dodged the question and said the hypothetical Kelly gives would never actually happen. Again, I have no idea if that is true and would like to know if it is.

This is a perfect example of how Kelly fucked up the debate. Who gives a shit what Walker thinks about abortion? It is not a federal issue and he couldn't ban it as President if he wanted to. Fuck Kelly and her God Damned KULTURE war rabbit holes. Unless she wants to do a Basic Instinct leg cross on TV, I really don't give a shit about her vagina and would have appreciated her asking questions that were germane to the question of who is should be President.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"At worst he dodged the question and said the hypothetical Kelly gives would never actually happen."

Or you could say at worst he could not directly say he wouldn't let a grown woman die to save a fetus.

"Fuck Kelly and her God Damned KULTURE war rabbit holes"

You're aware that Walker has brought up his pro life bona fides, when he's in front of the 'right audiences' of course. So why shouldn't Kelly ask him about something he's running on and on which he's (depending on the audience) proud to say he signed legislation on?

[Just say Nikki]

At worst he dodged the question and said the hypothetical Kelly gives would never actually happen.

Yeah, that's pretty fucking bad, John.

This is a perfect example of how Kelly fucked up the debate. Who gives a shit what Walker thinks about abortion?

Yep, Kelly totally fucked up that debate by giving two candidates an opportunity to say they wouldn't rather see women die than allow an abortion.

[John]

Is it bad? I don't know because I have no idea if these "alternatives" he talks about really exist. Even if it is bad, it is bad for a different reason than Ron says. Bailey accuses Walker of believing the life of the mother is less important than the child and that is not true even if he did dodge the question.

Yep, Kelly totally fucked up that debate by giving two candidates an opportunity to say they wouldn't rather see women die than allow an abortion.

Yes she did. Don't you see what a self evidently stupid question that is? She asking them to make a hypothetical choice they will never have to make as President and one which she herself doesn't really know or establish would ever exist. That is most certainly fucking up the debate.

[Just say Nikki]

No, John, I do not see why it is self-evidently stupid for her to ask the candidates whether they would endanger her life if they could.

[John]

How is asking a question that they will never have to answer as President not a stupid question in a Presidential debate? Would you be okay if she had asked them if they believed in God and their opinion on evolution? Having a debate about the existence of God and the validity of evolution is about as relevant as having a debate about the far contours of permissible abortions.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"How is asking a question that they will never have to answer as President not a stupid question in a Presidential debate?"

1. When he's run on this in front of other audiences?

2. When he would nominate the judges who decide this question?

[Lee G]

Who gives a shit what Walker thinks about abortion?

About ten metric shit-tons of GOP primary voters, calculated by the weight of their signatures on tissue paper.

[John]

Unless the candidate comes out as full on pro choice, no way do even GOP voters care. The GOP voters don't give a shit about the nuances of this issue. Do you really think that if Walker has said "of course abortion should be legal in the case of the life of the mother" he would have lost any support? No way in hell.

[Lee G]

Do you really think that if Walker has said "of course abortion should be legal in the case of the life of the mother" he would have lost any support?

You're parsing it at the extreme end of the issue. But the blanket statement that abortion is not relevant during the primary is not true.

[John]

It is in the context of the question asked utterly irrelevant in that whatever Walker's answer, he would have been within the acceptable mainstream of Republican thinking. Kelly is a self absorbed half wit more interested in her pet vagina issue than issues that actually matter.

[Just say Nikki]

Do you really think that if Walker has said "of course abortion should be legal in the case of the life of the mother" he would have lost any support? No way in hell.

So why didn't he? Because he can't win the general like this.

[John]

I don't know Nikki. Go ask him. Since I don't care what his answer is no matter what its content, I still don't see why that fact makes the question any less of a waste of time.

[Just say Nikki]

Silly Megyn Kelly wanting to know if someone thought she should die when life-saving surgery was available.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"Since I don't care what his answer is no matter what its content"

It doesn't effect you, so you're 'so what?' It could happen to someone like Kelly, and be the literal difference between life and death, but she's just thinking with her vagina for asking about it.

[mad.casual]

And Bailey was clearly wrong too. Walker isn't saying zero abortions, he's saying zero abortions after 20 weeks.

The 19% number Ron cites has no stipulation for time. If you look at partial-birth or late-term abortion statistics (last 6 mo. or well before 20 weeks), between 57 and 68% of people oppose them.

[Just say Nikki]

Walker isn't saying zero abortions, he's saying zero abortions after 20 weeks.

That's not remotely what Walker said. Walker was such a pussy he couldn't tell Megyn Kelly, "No, I wouldn't let you die."

[mad.casual]

I didn't see/hear what Walker said. The bill he signed and the data and facts that Ron quoted in the article are inconsistent.

Ron mentions the bill, 19% approval, and ectopic pregnancies. Everyone directly involved with an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy would be dead well before 20 weeks, 19% makes no stipulation for time, and abortions after even 12 weeks are enormously unpopular.

[Lee G]

Everyone directly involved with an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy would be dead well before 20 weeks

This. I know someone who had one and it wasn't pretty.

[R C Dean]

Terminating an ectopic pregnancy is a borderline abortion in any case. I believe that in some states it doesn't even count as an abortion.

Because the embryo ain't gonna make it no matter what.

[John]

Exactly RC. I don't care who takes over the SCOTUS or how anti abortion the electorate becomes, this country is never going to ban abortions of nonviable fetuses. It is just never going to happen. So, Walker's opinion on that subject, whatever it is, is irrelevant.

[Just say Nikki]

Ron mentions the bill, 19% approval, and ectopic pregnancies. Everyone directly involved with an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy would be dead well before 20 weeks, 19% makes no stipulation for time, and abortions after even 12 weeks are enormously unpopular.

Yeah, but unfortunately for all those women, Walker would have preferred they die. Kelly didn't ask him anything about 20 weeks, or 12, or anything. Just about whether there should be any life exception, ever.

[mad.casual]

Actually, she mentions the law he signed meanders around with a vague hypothetical and loose stats and, eventually, only asks if his view was consistent with the mainstream. To which he said he said yes.

But I guess he does have a Y-chromosome so we automatically presume somewhere between rapist and murder, right?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Why so hard for him to say 'no, of course not' then?

[mad.casual]

Why so hard for him to say 'no, of course not' then?

Bo, in recent history, you've disagreed with between 20 and 60% of people. So, when you get over your little fetish with murdering women, maybe you can give us a straight answer on why your opinions are too mainstream to win the general elections or are you too shady to even answer the question?

[Just say Nikki]

So, when she said "83% of people disagree with you," and he said "I'm in the mainstream," you take issue with "loose stats."

But yeah, I mean, of course it's just that I hate people with Y chromosomes.

[mad.casual]

So, when she said "83% of people disagree with you," and he said "I'm in the mainstream," you take issue with "loose stats."

I must've missed the "83% of people side with Kelly against Scott Walker in the GOP Presidential Debates" poll.

Since you didn't explicitly say that you love Scott Walker and would save his life over that of some child you don't know, I can *only* assume you hate and want to oppress all men. There can't possibly be any other interpretation.

[WoodchipsandDerp]

I believe that is an unborn child that's in need of protection out there?and I've said many a time that that unborn child can be protected and there are many other alternatives that will also protect the life of that mother. That's been consistently proven

[Mike M.]

From most of the serious research that I've seen, the maternal mortality rate in modern America is approximately 20 deaths for every 100,000 child births.

It's always tragic whenever a woman dies giving birth to a child, but simple fourth grade math tells us that the chance of it actually happening to a woman in America these days is .02 percent (two hundredths of a percent). In 2013, we had approximately 800 maternal deaths, and one million abortions.

In other words, the whole "life of the mother" canard for justifying abortion seems like rather thin gruel to me.

[Just say Nikki]

How many women do you think would die giving birth if they hadn't been allowed to abort the most dangerous pregnancies?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It's a small fraction, maybe a few hundred, so let's just dismiss them!

[Trshmnstr doesn't recycle]

It's a small fraction, maybe a few hundred, so let's just dismiss them!

Or we can treat them as what they are... a corner case. Instead, we play this kabuki theater where we pretend that most abortions aren't for convenience.

[Mike M.]

Let's get ludicrous and suggest that the rate would be a hundred times higher than it is if abortion wasn't legal at all.

That takes you all the way up to about eighty thousand women a year. Guess what? Eighty thousand is still a lot lower than a million.

[Just say Nikki]

Is that supposed to be persuasive? It's not.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I thought I was caricaturing him when I said 'it's not a big number, few thousand, let 'em die.' But you can't parody some people.

[Mike M.]

Botard, you're too fucking stupid to even understand my point. "Abortion should never be legal" is not my position, and never has been.

[Free Market Socialist $park?]

Never tell them the odds.

The insignificant chance of something possibly happening is irrelevant when death is a possible outcome. How many things are done for the children, if it saves just one life, etc?

[John]

It is different than even that. How many of those 20 deaths per 100,000 child births are known before the birth such that the woman could even be given the option of an abortion to prevent it? Damn few I imagine. Sure, there are some women who are so pro life they will take death over abortion, but very few. Most women would be devastated but if told by their doctors "if you have this child you will die", would choose abortion.

This is another issue that people just talk out of their asses on. Megyn Kelly doesn't know shit about obstetrics and asks a question assuming these cases even occur or are anything but extremely rare. No one ever bothers to explain under exactly what conditions is it that a mother can't even have a premature C section and must either get an abortion or face death. I am not saying this doesn't happen. I would like to hear someone who actually knows something explain when and how often it does before we even have this debate. It would be nice to debate a subject after we understand the facts rather than just pulling shit out of the air that sounds good.

[Just say Nikki]

Megyn Kelly doesn't know shit about obstetrics and asks a question assuming these cases even occur or are anything but extremely rare.

They occur.

Who cares how rare they are?

[John]

Do they occur? Show me where they do. Show me a real life example of a case where a woman finds out late in her pregnancy that if she doesn't have an abortion she will die and there is no way to induce or do a C section. Show me a case of that. I have never seen such.

I am not saying they don't. I have however never seen where they do. And Kelly's question assumes they not only exist but happen often enough to be an issue in a Presidential election. I am not seeing that. But if you do, I would love to see the examples of what she is talking about.

[Just say Nikki]

John, it doesn't matter if it is late in the pregnancy. Scott Walker doesn't want a life exception ever.

[John]

Except that as we discussed above he didn't say that. You and Ron took his avoiding the question to mean he did and the fact is he didn't.

[Just say Nikki]

Yes, I crazily took the failure to say, "No, Megyn, I wouldn't let women die" as an admission that he would, in fact, let women die.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It's such a hard thing to say you see! But the fact that Kelly even asked him about it is the real scandal. Uppity woman!

[Azathoth!!]

Okay, he signed the law that has the life exception. Right? We've got that, right?

But he also stated he wasn't particularly in favor of it.

In favor of what, exactly? The life exception itself? The way it was written? Something else in the bill? What?

And why is this a big deal at all if he signed the life exception into law?

[mad.casual]

More importantly, the bill only pertained to abortions after 20 weeks, which are enormously unpopular (both by pregnant women and voters) anyway.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

" abortions after 20 weeks, which are enormously unpopular"

Not in certain case. Like the ones he was asked about, for instance.

[mad.casual]

Technically, the question was whether he was "too out of the mainstream" and makes no stipulation as to the length of the pregnancy.

How many women in WI did, will/would Scott Walker's version of the bill (*if ever, possibly enacted*) kill?

[R C Dean]

If we're doing utilitarian math, let's not forget to ask how many babies would not be aborted if his version of the bill (whatever that is) is signed.

And yes, I think there should be an exception for the life of the mother.

And no, I don't think utilitarian math is very useful here.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You're moving the goalposts. Your original comment was "the bill only pertained to abortions after 20 weeks, which are enormously unpopular " my reply was that in the specific kind of post 20 week abortions when the life of the mother is in danger, they are quite popular. Now you want to talk about how often the procedure happens rather than how popular the exception for it is.

[mad.casual]

Well, the pregnancy he was asked about was vague and hypothetical except to say that it is 83% supported against Walker regardless of any question asked, so Walker couldn't possibly give any right answer.

You'll just have forgive me for waiting to see if there are any victims of Scott Walker's proposed legislation before I convict him of proposing murder and/or whether it's popularity is relevant.

If I'm moving the goal post, it's because there's a high wind and we aren't playing the game on a field anywhere in our solar system.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Ray Guy finalist Scott Walker with another impressive punt.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

So Scott Walker does not believe in self-defense.

[SugarFree]

No, Scott Walker is a fully trained OB-GYN and Megyn Kelly is just some dumb bitch who dared question him.

[Ken Shultz]

The idea that you can only be held responsible for the risks you willing accept is fundamental.

To the extent that I'm sympathetic to the pro-life position, it is only to the extent that the mother willingly accepted the responsibility when she willingly engaged in an activity that might have obvious consequences. If sex wasn't engaged in willingly, then no such responsibility exists.

It's the same thing with self-defense in a murder case. It is usually not okay to willingly shoot other people in the head, but if you did so in self-defense, you didn't really have any choice. And if you don't have any choice, then you shouldn't be held criminally responsible for shooting someone in the head.

That Walker doesn't understand that is more than just a little troubling.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I doubt he really doesn't understand it, he was just afraid of giving a real and possibly wrong answer. He does this all the time. In fairness to him, it's not uncommon for pols, especially ones like him that are trying to walk the fence between courting the pro-lifers and turning off those who are put off by the extremes of that movement.

[John]

Just because you invite someone into your home, doesn't mean you can't act in self defense if they end up being a threat to your life. I am okay with abortion in cases where it is the only way to save the mother. I have yet to see anyone explain when that actually happens. There have been cases where women had cancer or something and choose to carry the kid to term even though doing so was likely to kill them. That however doesn't really fit this issue. If a woman knows that giving birth is going to kill her and doesn't choose to have an abortion for five months, I don't see a problem with telling her, sorry it is too late the kid inside you is now alive and you can't just kill it even though it is putting you in danger. You had months to stop this and didn't.

The real issue is the case of a mother who is fine for the first 20 weeks or whatever of pregnancy and then the doctors realize that continuing the pregnancy is going to kill her and even inducing delivery of a premi or doing a C section now won't change that. That is the situation that Kelly's question implies exists but no one has ever as far as I can see explained how it could or how often it could.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"I am okay with abortion in cases where it is the only way to save the mother. I have yet to see anyone explain when that actually happens."

&

"The real issue is the case of a mother who is fine for the first 20 weeks or whatever of pregnancy and then the doctors realize that continuing the pregnancy is going to kill her"

Lol

[Lee G]

You're leaving out the more common scenario where the fetus is non-viable outside of the womb or brain-dead after 20 weeks and delivery presents unnecessary risks (almost always non-fatal) that can be ameliorated by aborting it.

[John]

Yes I am because that is not the question Kelly asked. Your example involves the question of when is a fetus not really alive even if you are pro life. That is a good question but a different question than when is abortion okay to save the life of the mother. I don't see how the threat to the mother has anything to do with the viability of the child. If the child is brain dead, then it is not alive and the abortion is not taking a life. If the child has no hope of living outside the womb, then aborting it is no different than ending life support for people in fatal comas.

Those questions are really more euthanasia questions and not what Kelly asked.

[HazelMeade]

Exactly. There are lots of cases where the fetus is non-viable or would be severely disabled, that aren't identified until after 20 weeks.
See Trisomy 13 and Trisomy 18. Which usually result in still birth. Even with a live birth, infant mortality kills most within a year.

[John]

And Hazel, if the fetus is non viable, it is not alive. I don't see anything in the above statement that shows Walker would disagree with that.

[Just say Nikki]

Is there anything that shows he would agree with it?

[John]

No but there is nothing there that says he is a Packers' fan either. That is because he wasn't asked about either subject. You are complaining that Walker didn't ask a question that wasn't asked. Kelly asked him about abortions in the case where the life of the mother is in danger. Implicit in that question is the assumption the fetus is viable and alive. Otherwise, what is the point of asking it?

[Just say Nikki]

He was asked if he would let women die rather than have an abortion. WTF was he not asked about? Only one of us actually watched this debate, John, in case you forgot.

[mad.casual]

I think that depends on what the mainstream opinion is (or what Scott Walker thinks it is).

Maybe Ron could feed him some stats.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Non-viable equals not alive? Wow.

[John]

Yes. God you are fucking stupid. Is a person stuck on life support with no brain activity and no hope of recovery "alive" such that you can never withdraw life support? I don't think so.

I know you are functionally illiterate but let me repeat what I said above.

If the child has no hope of living outside the womb, then aborting it is no different than ending life support for people in fatal comas.

Is trying to be stupid your act?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Non-viable doesn't mean alive John, and your profound lack of understanding of the movement you are defending that lies in that statement is hilarious. Pro-lifers certainly consider a 19 week old fetus to not only be 'alive' (just about all of them would, because they're correct) and rights bearing (most of them here).

[Just say Nikki]

Is a person stuck on life support with no brain activity and no hope of recovery "alive" such that you can never withdraw life support? I don't think so.

Are you really going to pretend you don't know that many pro-life people believe it would absolutely be wrong to withdraw life support in this situation?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

He's careening around like a drunk sailor today.

[See Double You]

I'm sure some do. Just like some pro-choice people are cool with murdering young children. They're on the extremes.

[HazelMeade]

And Hazel, if the fetus is non viable, it is not alive.

That's not accurate. Non-viable means "cannot survive until birth". It doesn't mean "dead". There's effectively no difference between a viable fetus inside the uterus and a non-viable one outside it (ectopic pregnancy).
What makes it non-viable is that it isn't in the uterus, because it won't be able to develop a proper placenta, so it will eventually die.

[Ken Shultz]

When women of child bearing years are anesthetized, they're generally given pregnancy tests.

If they test positive, they're often given the option of having an abortion while they're under anesthesia for the same procedure they were going to have anyway.

If abortion were illegal regardless of whether it impacted the life of the mother, you would be cancelling thousands of operations every year. Some of those operations would be heart surgeries and some of them would be double mastectomies to try to save the woman from breast cancer. Some of them would be for a burst appendix.

[mad.casual]

When women of child bearing years are anesthetized, they're generally given pregnancy tests.

If you need a pregnancy test at 20 weeks to tell if a woman's pregnant, we might want to take a closer look at your medical license.

[Ken Shultz]

I didn't say they necessarily need to test every woman, especially the ones that know and will tell you that they're pregnant.

But if an anesthesiologist causes you to spontaneously abort--even if you didn't know you were pregnant? Then patients can, do, and probably should sue the hell out of the anesthesiologist.

When they take that blood before you go into surgery, they're testing for all sorts of things to make sure you're suitable for the surgery you're undergoing. An adequate RBC count is one thing. Screening for pregnancy is one of those things.

When I was working in the hospital, we had a mother/daughter team come in to get gastroplasty at the same time--share the same hospital room, etc. The daughter tested positive for pregnancy, and the mother jumped up and started smacking her daughter around.

Oh, and there was a lady at church, when I was a kid. A big fat lady. She came to church with a newborn one day, and everybody asked her whose was it. She didn't even know she was pregnant. She went to the ER with severe abdominal pain, and they saw a little foot...

[mad.casual]

Oh, and there was a lady at church, when I was a kid. A big fat lady. She came to church with a newborn one day, and everybody asked her whose was it. She didn't even know she was pregnant. She went to the ER with severe abdominal pain, and they saw a little foot...

Did she need an emergency appendectomy? Did they do the appendectomy without an ultrasound and/or thorough abdominal/pelvic exam first? I used to run chemistry samples in the lab until I got tired of listening to M.D.s fuck up differentials and tell me I, my lab, or my instruments were wrong so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the routine and I don't see Walker's stance as inconsistent with popular opinion and/or medical ethics.

If a doctor fucks up and has to abort a fetus at 20+ weeks in order to save the mother has he killed someone? Yup. Just the same as if he had fucked up and killed the mother to save the child. The one in a billion chance that the doctor doesn't fuck up and naturally finds themselves in a position where they have to choose between the Mother and the fetus, they should probably be raked over the coals no matter what the outcome of that situation too.

Otherwise, you've got 20 weeks to grow a pair (or a second pair as the case may be) and decide whether you're keeping the kid or not, more time isn't going to make the decision any easier or *less* murderous.

[John]

Ken,

If they test positive, they're often given the option of having an abortion while they're under anesthesia for the same procedure they were going to have anyway.

If abortion were illegal regardless of whether it impacted the life of the mother, you would be cancelling thousands of operations every year.

Those two sentences don't follow. If the abortion is "optional" then why would making it illegal mean the surgery would not happen? The only way your second sentences is true is if the abortion is necessary for the surgery, meaning a woman can't get the surgery while pregnant. That may be true, i don't know. But if it is, then the abortion isn't "optional" is is required.

If there are cases where a woman cannot get life saving surgery because she is pregnant, then yes that would be a perfect example of what I am talking about. Again, I would like to see actual facts on under what circumstances and how often this actually happens. You imply it happens thousands of times a year, but without some citation I see no reason to believe that.

[Just say Nikki]

Those two sentences don't follow. If the abortion is "optional" then why would making it illegal mean the surgery would not happen? The only way your second sentences is true is if the abortion is necessary for the surgery, meaning a woman can't get the surgery while pregnant. That may be true, i don't know. But if it is, then the abortion isn't "optional" is is required.

John, I don't know if you are really this clueless about hard-core pro-lifers, but they would absolutely call that abortion optional. They would expect the woman to die rather than have surgery that required an abortion to perform.

[John]

Nikki, I really don't care about the pro lifers who live in your head. I do, however, care about how often this situation actually arises and how you could craft a legal regime that deals with it.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Exceptions are kind of made for rare cases, John. You act like 'well, since it's rare we don't need any exception!'

[Just say Nikki]

How often do women who might be pregnant get cancer?

Do you know what pro-life people think they should do if that happens?

[Ken Shultz]

"How often do women who might be pregnant get cancer?"

Thousands every year.

And the point is that making abortion illegal despite whether it impacted the life of the mother would result in thousands of cases that were so awful, the American people wouldn't stand for it.

It's like putting a tax on coal and oil sufficient enough to fix the problem of global warming. The effects on the economy would be so bad, people would quickly get upset, vote in new leaders and remove those taxes.

It's not just that Walker's thinking is wrong. It's also impractical. A ban on such abortions might only stand in ISIS occupied territory.

[John]

And the point is that making abortion illegal despite whether it impacted the life of the mother would result in thousands of cases that were so awful, the American people wouldn't stand for it.

Show me a citation supporting that assertion. That is a bold claim and not something I am taking on your word. I am not saying your wrong, I am just saying I don't know and want more proof than your word.

Moreover, whatever extent these cases exist, they would fit into any life of the mother exception to an abortion ban. If you can't get life saving surgury without abortion the child, then the resulting abortion is done for the life of the mother.

Since no one that I have ever seen is advocating a total ban on abortion even in the case where the life of the mother is in danger, I don't see how your point is relevant.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"Moreover, whatever extent these cases exist, they would fit into any life of the mother exception to an abortion ban."

Like. The. One. Walker. Couldn't. Say. He'd. Allow.

Holy sheesh. It's like you're half here for the discussion.

[Just say Nikki]

Moreover, whatever extent these cases exist, they would fit into any life of the mother exception to an abortion ban.

...which Walker believes should not exist.

Since no one that I have ever seen is advocating a total ban on abortion even in the case where the life of the mother is in danger, I don't see how your point is relevant.

Except the person whom this post is about, and the next guy who had to answer the same question (Rubio).

[Ken Shultz]

"Show me a citation supporting that assertion."

Look at my math on Baylor's system below.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08.....nt_5499338

There are so many millions of patients out there, and you're not limiting those millions by much.

Percentage of people who are women of child bearing years * Percentage of them who are pregnant at any given time * percentage of them who have surgeries for life saving surgeries every year * 300 million is a significant number.

[Ken Shultz]

"Those two sentences don't follow. If the abortion is "optional" then why would making it illegal mean the surgery would not happen?"

We were talking about what would happen if the life of the mother were no longer an excuse for giving a woman an abortion.

They would test for pregnancy ahead of what may be a life saving heart surgery, see that the patient was pregnant, and if abortion is illegal, then what?

A doctor can't be called in to abort the fetus during surgery, right?

If the level of anesthesia required to undergo heart surgery has a significant chance of causing the fetus to abort during surgery, then they'll need to cancel the surgery. Otherwise, the anesthesiologist is going to get sued--a dozen times a year--and he may also be charged with some kind of criminal negligence and have his license to practice taken away. Not to mention staff privileges at the hospital. How likely is a hospital to keep granting privileges to an anesthesiologist that causes x number of spontaneous abortions during surgery every year?

[John]

If the level of anesthesia required to undergo heart surgery has a significant chance of causing the fetus to abort during surgery, then they'll need to cancel the surgery. Otherwise, the anesthesiologist is going to get sued--a dozen times a year--and he may also be charged with some kind of criminal negligence and have his license to practice taken away.

Then we are talking about cases where life saving surgery can't be done without giving the woman an abortion. If the surgery results in terminating the pregnancy, then it can't be done if the woman is pregnant without doing an abortion.

Again, that is a good example of the situation I describe above. How often does it actually happen? I would like to see the stats on that. Regardless, if it is the case that a woman who is say 22 weeks pregnant needs surgery and it cannot wait until she has the child and that surgery is likely to kill the child, then that case clearly falls into the category of abortions done to save the life of the mother.

[Ken Shultz]

Take the number of life saving surgeries done every year on women of child bearing years, and multiply it by the percentage of women in that age group who are pregnant at any given time.

As somebody who used to work in making software that would help the biggest hospitals and hospital chains report these kinds of statistics to regulators, I can tell you that it would be--at least--in the tens of thousands every year.

[Ken Shultz]

I used to work on this account:

https://www.ahd.com/states/hospital_TX.html

They have 2.4 million discharges every year.

If 20% are women of child bearing years, 10% of those are for life threatening conditions, and 2% of them are pregnant (all of which may be conservative estimates), you're talking 960 women per year.

...and that's just at Baylor.

[John]

Okay. And all 960 of those requires abortions for the surgery to occur? Every one?

[Ken Shultz]

Are you suggesting that 960 out of 2.4 million is high estimate?

That's four ten thousandths of one percent.

4/10,000 of 1%.

0.0004.

It seems like it should be a small number, and as a multiplier, I suppose it is small. However, there are millions of women that go into the hospital for life saving procedures every year.

[mad.casual]

The entire population of WI is 5.8M.

If they all showed up to the hospital every year and; 20% of women of age, 2% are pregnant, 10% need life-saving treatment, 30% are 20+ weeks, and an unbelievable 20% need treatment that would kill the fetus. You're talking about killing 139 women.

I strongly doubt the entire state shows up for medical care every year, I strongly doubt 20% of surgeries inherently kill fetuses, I strongly doubt 100% of life saving surgeries can't be put off and/or have no other options... etc. I strongly doubt that all of these numbers I have doubts about don't improve dramatically year-over-year. I fully admit I don't have the facts which is why I ask, Walker's proposal/objections were pretty clear; 20+ weeks women (doctor's) must choose the option that produces the best outcome for both mother and child. How many women has/would he kill by taking the 'safer' option that intrinsically kills the fetus off the shelf? I *suspect*, for the state of WI, it's very near 0 and diminishing rapidly everywhere. Doctors make this decision for patients every day, Walkers proposal isn't anything really extraordinary from regular medical ethics.

[Ken Shultz]

"If 20% are women of child bearing years, 10% of those are for life threatening conditions, and 2% of them are pregnant (all of which may be conservative estimates), you're talking 960 women per year."

Let's do the math.

2.4 million * .20 of childbearing years = 480,000.

480,000 women of child bearing years * .02 who are pregnant = 9,600.

9,600 women who are pregnant * .1 who need life saving surgeries = 960 women.

Using those assumptions, you would estimate that 960 women would have to wait until they were no longer pregnant before they underwent life saving surgery.

And that's just at Baylor system. You want to say it's 20 times that number nationwide?

Society will not tolerate that many women being put off for life saving surgery. It's a non-starter. That nine out of however many Republican candidates won't endorse Walker's position is telling--and they're all vying for the support of Republican primary voters and donors who are disproportionately pro-life!

[Ken Shultz]

I don't understand where you're getting these numbers from, mad casual.

I used Baylor's numbers just to demonstrate how many people we're talking about here. From my link, you can see that Baylor has hospitals all over the state of Texas, and Texas has more people than Wisconsin, sure.

The point is that rare is a funny word when we're talking about a nation of 300 million people.

Think of it this way: about 3% of babies are born with birth defects...

They say 1 in 2,858 babies are born with spina bifida--would you consider that rare? I would!

But in a nation of 300,000,000 people, it adds up to 1,460 babies born with spina bifida every year.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html

That low estimate of 1.2% of women of child bearing years finding out that they're pregnant preoperatively? That's a significant number of people we're talking about out of a nation of 300,000,000 people.

[Ken Shultz]

"Those two sentences don't follow. If the abortion is "optional"...

Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you're focusing on the optional part?

You can't do anything to a patient without their consent. And I mean an iron clad consent form that RC Dean has gone over with a fine tooth comb and continuously revises to meet evolving case law in his jurisdiction.

If you give a woman an abortion during surgery, you need her to sign a consent form specifically for that procedure--but if the alternative is forgoing life saving heart surgery, then we're really stretching the definition of "optional". I need to consent to surgery to treat a bullet wound to my chest, too--but that hardly means the surgery itself is optional. The other option may be death.

If someone sticks a gun in your face and says, "Empty the cash register or you're dead", the cashier may have the "option" to refuse and get shot in the face, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that handing over the cash is actually the only option.

Dying by default for want of heart surgery isn't really an "option", is it?

[John]

Again see above. If you can't do the surgery without killing the child and the surgery is necessary to save the mother, then that is a case where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The kind of case Walker couldn't or wouldn't give an answer about whether he'd allow.

[Ken Shultz]

"If you can't do the surgery without killing the child and the surgery is necessary to save the mother, then that is a case where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother."

We were talking about Walker's position, right?

We're talking about what would happen if Walker could ban abortions that were given to protect the life of the mother.

That's Walker's position. Read it up top.

[John]

No it is not Walker's position. Bailey totally mischaracterizes it. Walker never said that. What he did say is that there are often alternatives that protect both the child and the mother. Maybe that is not true, but even if it is not, Walker did not say he thought abortion should never be allowed in cases where the life of the mother requires it.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Megan prefaces the question with "Governor Walker, you've consistently said that you want to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. You recently signed an abortion law in Wisconsin that does have an exception for the mother's life, but you're on the record as having objected to it."

Walker doesn't contest that in his answer (because he can't). You're not even reading the basic things you're so worked up about.

[Just say Nikki]

Maybe that is not true, but even if it is not, Walker did not say he thought abortion should never be allowed in cases where the life of the mother requires it.

Yes, he did, and that's why Megyn Kelly asked him about this.

[Ken Shultz]

Bailey didn't mischaracterize it.

I'm reading it from the script.

[HazelMeade]

When women of child bearing years are anesthetized, they're generally given pregnancy tests.

If they test positive, they're often given the option of having an abortion while they're under anesthesia for the same procedure they were going to have anyway.

This is total horseshit. I've been under anesthesia. I've never been given a pregnancy test or asked if I want an abortion.

[See Double You]

The other day, Tonio told me you were a guy. Can I get a final ruling, please?

[Ken Shultz]

While it's tempting to suggest that the reason they didn't test her before surgery was because she's a man, I think it's safe to infer from her expectation of having been tested preop that she is a woman.

Also, those who consistently accuse me of being full of horseshit even after years of demonstrating that I'm not full of horseshit at all? They tend to be women.

I'm just sayin'.

[Ken Shultz]

It could be in your medical record, and you didn't now about it. They took blood right? Did they tell you what your RBC count was?

"In a prospective study performed by Manley et al (10), 2056 women of childbearing age underwent preoperative pregnancy testing when presenting for nonobstetrical, ambulatory surgery. They reported an incidence of 0.34% previously unrecognized early pregnancies, all of which resulted in cancellation or postponement of the procedure. Azzam et al (12) reported the results of their institution's mandatory preoperative pregnancy testing in 412 adolescents, a patient group known to be reluctant to disclose sexual history or pregnancy status. No patient 14 years of age or younger tested positive; however, there was an incidence of 2.4% in patients 15 years of age or older. The overall incidence was calculated to be 1.2%. Similarly, Twersky and Singleton (11) reported a positive pregnancy rate of 2.2% on preoperative testing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....cjps20e032

If there is an overall incidence is as little as 1.2% of women of child bearing age being pregnant and not knowing it when they go in for surgery, then we're talking about thousands and thousands of women every year.

[WoodchipsandDerp]

I don't understand what you wrote either. If someone attacks me I have the right to shoot you in the head?

[Ken Shultz]

You can only be held criminally responsible for the things you do willingly.

If someone breaks into your house, attacks you with a gun, starts shooting at you, etc., and you draw your gun and shoot the attacker in the head in self-defense? No, you should not be held criminally responsible for murder--because you didn't really have a choice.

I don't think you have a right to shoot anybody, but you can't be held criminally responsible if you didn't have a choice.

Women who are the victims of rape also didn't have a choice, and they shouldn't be held criminally responsible for things that were done to them against their will.

If they willfully engaged in activity in which the obvious consequences might include pregnancy, then that's a completely different ballgame--from both an ethical and a legal standpoint.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The most surprising thing of the night...

I thought FOX did a good job, asking hard questions and holding their feet to the fire when they tried to weasel out.

Credit where due.

(PS, they are still all idiots and I hate Megyn Kelly)

[Tony]

They were good questions... in a certain context. That context is not "the real issues facing humanity and the US." But still, not bad.

I'm perplexed though. Can I ask you a personal question? Do you like women? In my experience Megyn Kelly elicits only one emotion from straight guys, and it has nothing to do with her reporter cred.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You see, Tony, heterosexual males can find a woman attractive and still hate them for their behaviors.

I said I hate her. I didn't say she was a 0.

[In League with the Dark Ones]

In my experience Megyn Kelly elicits only one emotion from straight guys,

"I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him."

[Antilles]

God, I hope this imbecile doesn't get the nomination. I like how he stood up to the unions in his state, but his stance on virtually every other topic is the polar opposite of what I believe. This guy and a Republican Congress would be a disaster for anyone who loves freedom and liberty.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I'm assuming you are speaking about all of them, with the possible exception of Paul?

[Antilles]

I couldn't watch the debate because I don't have TV or internet at home. But everything I hear about Walker (such as his desire to drug test welfare recipients) convinces me I could never vote for him (or most of the present candidates). At this point the only ones I like are Fiorina, Trump, and Paul. If anyone else gets the nomination I'll probably sit this election out, or throw my vote away on the Libertarian candidate.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

There was only one person on that stage that I could conceivably vote for, and I wasn't entirely happy with his answers, though I understand the need for evasion given the stupidity of Republicans.

[Antilles]

My personal beliefs align closer to Paul's than anyone else on that stage, but I don't think he'll ever get the nomination because the media has so effectively vilified him by insinuating things he's never said (much as people in this forum do).

[Peaceboner]

This sounds like the hypothetical "Would you steal someone's property if you were dying, and some guy has the medicine to save you but won't sell it to you?"

Huh? Where's your libertarian principles now? So all stealing is okay, because I proved it with an absurd hypothetical or something.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Are you missing that the basis of Kelly's question is that Walker himself has said (to the right audiences, no doubt) that he want(s) to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. If he's going to run on that stand what's wrong with Kelly asking him about it? What's not hypothetical is his stand on it.

[R C Dean]

Walker himself has said (to the right audiences, no doubt) that he want(s) to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Huh. Could I get some confirmation of this? A link to a transcript, perhaps?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Walker didn't contest Kelly's assertion to that. See above.

[Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper]

WHOA! Sorry! I thought this was the immigration thread!

I'll let myself out....

*runs away*

[Homple]

Remember when it was only the religious nuts who were single issue zealots on abortion and used it as a litmus test for all politicians? Good times.

[John]

+10000

Walker may have given a wrong answer to a completely hypothetical question about an issue he would have very little power over as President. But it is the religious nuts who are the KULTURE Warriors.

[See Double You]

Yes. I've noticed from some of the pro-choice commenters here a certain little behavior that goes, "gosh, you pro-lifers keep distracting from the real issues with all this KULTUR KAMPF crap." They then proceed to argue every little point made by pro-lifers and accuse them of hating women and wanting to enslave them.

Seems to me like abortion is more than just KULTURE KAMPF to these pro-choicers.

[John]

The other issue is that "life of the mother" would likely become a loophole that would swallow a ban on any form of abortion. Just exactly how are we to determine when the "life of the mother" is in danger other than by what the abortionist and the mother claim? Without some form of due process, any life of the mother exception becomes nothing more than another box to check for elective abortions.

If you take this issue seriously and don't by into the life begins with the magic trip down the birth canal or the every sperm is needed positions at the extreme, it becomes very complex to figure out just what the law should be. How exactly do you ensure that women whose lives really are in danger can have abortions without that exception that makes any protection of unborn children a dead letter? It is not so easy.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

John's level of vitriol towards Kelly is interesting. It's not Walker's fault for going around telling pro-life audiences he's not for an exception, it's not his fault he couldn't give a straight answer, it's her fault for asking him about it.

[John]

If it is interesting, it is more interesting than anything you have ever said. Beyond that, how much time does Reason spend bitching and moaning about the GOP obsession with the KULTURE WAR? A ton. Given that fact it is a bit rich that reason and half wits like you now think it is great the Kelly asked a culture war question in a GOP Presidential debate. It is not like Walker brought the subject up on its own.

It is almost liek you are a lying sack of shit who loves the KULTURE war and thinks it is great the Kelly gratuitously brought it up or something.

[Tony]

I wish they had spent more time on the economy and the environment too.

[Ron Bailey]

T: They spent time discussing the environment? Did I miss it?

[Tony]

Not a second.

[Mike M.]

Why? Your vote is going to the Clinton organized crime family.

[Tony]

If team red made any indication that it cared about the actual issues facing real people on planet earth, I would possibly have another option.

[Mike M.]

You're as completely full of shit as your fellow JournoList scumbag Weigel is.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

So Walker runs around saying he's against an exception, he passes legislation in his state, and when he's asked about whether he would let a grown woman die to prevent an abortion he can't say no and Reason writes one article about it and it's Reason that's obsessed? lol, you're so transparent.

[Tony]

Seems to me at some point we'd have to decide whether the mother or the fetus is more worthy of living. If the fetus = baby, then we can imagine a post-womb dilemma. A mother is tied to one branch of train tracks and her baby to the other. The train is coming, and you can pull a lever. Forget which one it's heading to initially--the simple trolley problem with the lever is, imo, easy. Do we save the adult or the infant? I can't answer that with any certainty.

Now, same scenario, except the power to flip the switch is in the mother's hands. She can sacrifice herself or her baby. I doubt any third party would condemn either choice--the point would be giving her the choice.

The lesson kids is that anti-abortion is not about saving babies. It's about policing women's sexual behavior and it always has been. It's both primal sperm cataloging and Abrahamic religion. I have no doubt that Fuckleberry and ilk actually sincerely believe that it's about saving babies; that's the curious phenomenon of propaganda in service of one motive becoming the motive itself.

Both fetuses and infants have had varying degrees of viability throughout history. We seem to adjust our emotional attachment to them based on their probability of living. Draw the line at viability, let doctors handle the tough and ambiguous cases, and be done with it.

[John]

Your first two paragraphs actually make sense Tony. Sometimes you do manage to be smarter than Bo, a low bar granted. The problem is you let your hatred and your ideology make you fall back into stupidity and ignorance. Your last two paragraphs do not follow at all. Even if you grant that the most extreme pro life people believe the mother is less important than the child, that just means they expect mothers to sacrifice their lives for their children. That is certainly a debatable proposition but it has nothing to do with the desire to control women's sexuality. It just says they think mothers have an extreme duty to protect the children they have helped create. Saying women have a duty to their children and can't walk away from that duty is merely saying they must live with the consequences of their actions. It takes a very twisted mind to see making someone live with the consequences of their choices as wanting to "control them". It goes back to the fundamental lie behind all of your politics, "no one is free unless they can avoid responsibility for their actions".

[Tony]

But how often is the "consequences of actions" thing applied to fathers? They're equally responsible for the "action" that produced the baby, and even by talking in those terms you're admitting to wanting to police to sexual behavior.

At the very very least we have to entertain the idea that the power to abort is the power to end the father's germline, disrupting the entire biological purpose of males and plausibly introducing some resistance to the idea, curiously coming not from diverse corners of ethical thought, but from religious conservatives, who in many other ways have a history of trying to keep women in a certain place. Ignoring the sex policing aspect of this is to ignore its core motivations.

As for whether mothers should sacrifice themselves for their children, I don't think we have any recourse but to leave it up to them.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

But how often is the "consequences of actions" thing applied to fathers?

Every time, even for some poor saps who didn't even make the baby.

At the very very least we have to entertain the idea that the power to abort is the power to end the father's germline

Maybe in the instance where that father decided to mate with that female but males can mate with many females. That alone makes your proposition meaningless.

Second, it is still just a red herring. Murder is murder, whether the justification is to free a woman from the vicissitudes of a pregnancy or to end someone's bloodline, it is irrelevant.

[Tony]

Tautologies are tautologies. Do you not get that the question whether it is murder?

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

Do you not get that the question whether it is murder?

Who is asking the question? It IS murder. if you kill a person that is not committing an act of aggression against you, then the act is a murder. That is what it is.

[Tony]

But is it a person?

[See Double You]

How is it not?

[See Double You]

But how often is the "consequences of actions" thing applied to fathers?

Every. Fucking. Time.

Men have zero choice in the matter and are forced to pay for the child or go to prison. And you and other leftists are perfectly fine with this misandric hypocrisy.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

Seems to me at some point we'd have to decide whether the mother or the fetus is more worthy of living.

Why the false dilemma?

If the fetus = baby

It is Fetus = Human and Baby = Human. A fetus and a baby ae simply stages of the same thing: a Human Being.

the simple trolley problem

The trolley problem is bullshit because it shifts responsibility on a third person without justification. I wouldn't pull any lever: people assume the risks when they get inside a rickety-old trolley.

Now, same scenario, except the power to flip the switch is in the mother's hands. She can sacrifice herself or her baby. I doubt any third party would condemn either choice--the point would be giving her the choice.

I would, if there is a chance of saving both lives. She can still make that choice but that doesn't turn her into a hero.

The lesson kids is that anti-abortion is not about saving babies.

Its actually about condemning the act. I am against murder even if I don't go around trying to stop every murder that can happen.

You should a least try to make an effort to understand the arguments you're responding to, Tony, instead of creating these caricatures.

[Tony]

people assume the risks when they get inside a rickety-old trolley.

Uh, that's not the trolley problem I was referring to. The people are tied to tracks against their will.

I would, if there is a chance of saving both lives.

There is no chance of saving both lives, that is the whole goddamn point. You and Francisco need to have lunch some day and discuss the nature of thought experiments.

You should a least try to make an effort to understand the arguments you're responding to

You're lucky I have a post-GOP-debate hangover.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

Uh, that's not the trolley problem I was referring to. The people are tied to tracks against their will.

The five or whatever number of people tied up to the tracks? Same shit, Tony. It is still a bullshit problem. The "problem" requires that the person facing the dilemma is burdened by a responsibility for the lives of ALL individuals ? i.e it is based on a collectivist worldview. But there is NO SUCH THING as "shared responsibility" that compels a person to decide on the lives of one set of individuals over another.

There is no chance of saving both lives

Then it is not an abortion. It's an extirpation.

[Tony]

Some people think it is valid to say that doing nothing (i.e., choosing to let the train kill 5) is the preferred moral choice. I think this is easily the wrong answer, and the classic illustration of why doing nothing is not always the same as making no choice.

[See Double You]

I'll take the bate and view it from a purely utilitarian perspective, which provides a very easy answer: you save the baby.

The baby still has many years left to live, and in the meantime has the opportunity to live a full life.

The mother either already has lived a full life or has at least had some opportunity to do so.

[John]

And the baby did not consent to anything. The mother in contrast choose to have sex knowing that created a risk of becoming pregnant and experience all of the attendant dangers of pregnancy.

[Tony]

You just can't help but prove me right.

[Azathoth!!]

You are aware that abortion was a back-alley procedure before there were Abrahamic religions, right? That it has been controversial since humans figured out how to do it?

No?

You are clearly not aware that the viability standard will result in the eventual outlawing of abortion as the viability point is pushed further and further back (which is why so many abortion supporters are against it, preferring abortion on demand at any time).

[Tony]

And while I think, or at least hope, that religion will die out in the next centuries, the issue may yet be unsettled, as there is no solid logic to apply, ethics being what they are. So while I have my personal ideal, I think some middle ground may be the ticket.

[Just say Nikki]

You mean like in 18th century England, where it was legal?

[Azathoth!!]

So, to you, 'controversial' means 'illegal'?

[OldMexican]

The governor of Wisconsin's position apparently makes him stricter than the Pope.

Which is not saying much since the Pope is a communist.

[See Double You]

C'mon, OM, that's not really a fair take. It has been the Catholic Church's position, since at least Vatican II, that the mother's right to live outweighs the fetus's right to live when the latter actually endangers the former.

[tz]

One small point on "double effect" - it is normally used to explain ectopic pregnancies.

1. BOTH the baby and mother will die.
2. Only the Mother can be saved.
3, The only way to save the Mother is to (unintentionally) kill the baby.

You are portraying it as the choice the Joker gave Batman in the fairly recent movie.

If I was holding your wife and child hostage, and said I will kill one in the next 15 seconds, your choice, whom would you chose - if you don't choose, I will kill both. That is not "double effect".

[Viral Stories]

How to Get Everything You Want in Life
What do you want out of life?
Get Everything You Want in Life