Senate Election Thread (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

So there are 35 Senate seats contested in November. Use this thread to talk about them.

Here's a tracker site:

2020 Senate Election Interactive Map - 270toWin

Who will control the Senate? Review and predict the outcome of the 35 Senate races in the 2020 elections.

www.270towin.com

 

[Lapaz]

Then there is the rest of the story...If you say "life of the woman," what happens when a woman is undergoing a difficult pregnancy, and if she continues to carry the child, there is a 99% chance that she will end up damaging her uterus to the point that she can never have a child again? That's not "life of the woman," so no termination of that pregnancy. What if she will lose her sight? or a limb?

As you said, trying to articulate only certain medical conditions ends up leaving a position where anything outside of that verbiage is available as a condition for termination.

If the fetus is viable, then birth can be induced. If it is before viability, then many would allow an abortion.

The point that I’ve been making is that Democrats that won’t acknowledge restrictions in the 3rd trimester are too extreme for most of the electorate. Y’all can try to rationalize not legislating the 3rd trimester, but the winning position is the middle that Roe represented. Republicans were in trouble trying to defend the Hobbs decision, but as usual Democrats are giving away their edge by taking it too far.

 

[bdb13]

Doctors already take an oath - do no harm. It’s just a bad idea to criminalize any medical care, IMO. If the fetus is viable, as soon as it is removed it is a person-and is protected by all our laws. Why do we need to intrude on women’s medical care?

I will repeat - third trimester abortions do not happen unless there is something seriously wrong with the fetus or the condition of the mother.

Women feel such a bond by the third trimester. These are wanted pregnancies. Often names have been selected, nurseries are in progress, the woman feels the fetus move, hiccup, knows when it is sleeping and when it is awake. Knows what foods will cause some hyper-activity.

We have laws which would apply to the death of a viable baby. It’s enough.

I definitely respect your views and I know that as a guy I simply cannot get this issue in the same way that a woman does. It's just different and that's just how it is and I understand that.
..

I struggle with something like this where I feel that I am pretty strongly pro choice but also believe generally in the idea that at the point of viability (which I know is even arbitrary in and of itself and something I have ideas about but cannot honestly pinpoint exactly where and when that line is reached) what we're really talking about is a transition from a fetal state into a person and the ensuing considerations thereof including issues of morality and a sort of inherent conflicts of rights.

Beyond that, and with human nature as it is, I tend to believe rare situations in all likelihood do (or at least theoretically would, sans the existent regulations) exist out there where a person seeks out an abortion beyond viability and for reasons unrelated to *a medical need or fetal abnormality.

*Mental health can certainly be fit under an umbrella of medical need and I did actually read that some European countries have some sorts of exceptions but that conversion's not even ready to explicitly go there here and I imagine that's probably part of what goes into some of the broad language used by politicians regarding a woman's right to choose.
...

Anyway, at some great level it's a more difficult issue for me to reconcile than most others.

 

[J-DONK]

If the fetus is viable, then birth can be induced. If it is before viability, then many would allow an abortion.

The point that I’ve been making is that Democrats that won’t acknowledge restrictions in the 3rd trimester are too extreme for most of the electorate. Y’all can try to rationalize not legislating the 3rd trimester, but the winning position is the middle that Roe represented. Republicans were in trouble trying to defend the Hobbs decision, but as usual Democrats are giving away their edge by taking it too far.

This is true. Abortion is a winning argument for Democrats if you keep it to first 16 weeks. A huge swath of this country think it's crazy to be ok with killing a unborn child in the 9th month, and also making an 11 year old have a kid.

 

[Taurus]

A woman has the right to end her pregnancy whenever she wants, for any reason or none. It's the doctor's responsibility to determine if that means an abortion or a delivery.

 

[MT15]

This is true. Abortion is a winning argument for Democrats if you keep it to first 16 weeks. A huge swath of this country think it's crazy to be ok with killing a unborn child in the 9th month, and also making an 11 year old have a kid.

Once again - legislating some arbitrary number of weeks will kill some women. The example I just gave earlier was the woman who had her water break at 17 weeks. Accepted medical practice in this situation would be to terminate. Fetus isn’t viable and will die, woman is at risk of sepsis and death the longer this situation is allowed to go. Woman was forced to drive 400 miles to get treatment, once you arbitrarily make some 16 weeks a limit, you are just rolling the dice that she won’t die or get so seriously ill she will lose her uterus or kidney function to a raging infection.

This is a medical decision best left to the doctors and the women. Leave this to doctors and patients. If the fetus were viable, they would do a C-section or induce.

Healthy babies are not being aborted in the third trimester.

This is insane.

 

[MT15]

I definitely respect your views and I know that as a guy I simply cannot get this issue in the same way that a woman does. It's just different and that's just how it is and I understand that.
..

I struggle with something like this where I feel that I am pretty strongly pro choice but also believe generally in the idea that at the point of viability (which I know is even arbitrary in and of itself and something I have ideas about but cannot honestly pinpoint exactly where and when that line is reached) what we're really talking about is a transition from a fetal state into a person and the ensuing considerations thereof including issues of morality and a sort of inherent conflicts of rights.

Beyond that, and with human nature as it is, I tend to believe rare situations in all likelihood do (or at least theoretically would, sans the existent regulations) exist out there where a person seeks out an abortion beyond viability and for reasons unrelated to *a medical need or fetal abnormality.

*Mental health can certainly be fit under an umbrella of medical need and I did actually read that some European countries have some sorts of exceptions but that conversion's not even ready to explicitly go there here and I imagine that's probably part of what goes into some of the broad language used by politicians regarding a woman's right to choose.
...

Anyway, at some great level it's a more difficult issue for me to reconcile than most others.

You admit yourself that the point of viability is somewhat arbitrary - and I can assure you that it is. It’s a medical decision. Some pregnancies are not “timed” correctly (meaning that they are judged to be further along or less further along than they really are), some fetuses develop at different rates. Some are viable as early as 22 weeks, most are not. Generally if a woman’s water breaks at the 22-23 week point or later and there isn’t any evidence of gross fetal abnormalities they will deliver the child and try to save it. These are medical decisions, not legal ones.

 

[DaveXA]

You admit yourself that the point of viability is somewhat arbitrary - and I can assure you that it is. It’s a medical decision. Some pregnancies are not “timed” correctly (meaning that they are judged to be further along or less further along than they really are), some fetuses develop at different rates. Some are viable as early as 22 weeks, most are not. Generally if a woman’s water breaks at the 22-23 week point or later and there isn’t any evidence of gross fetal abnormalities they will deliver the child and try to save it. These are medical decisions, not legal ones.

I've largely found myself agreeing with your positions, particularly the doctor making medical decisions. That said, it seems to me there has to be a point where legal definitions are necessary to cover a variety of scenarios at different points in the pregnancy. Defining those parameters in legal terms is above my pay grade, but I do think protections for viable fetuses, the mother/father and her doctor are necessary and ultimately both legal and medical. I don't think the line drawn is at all clear. I do think viable fetuses should be protected, but I suspect you're right that as a general rule, doctors aren't aborting viable fetuses.

 

[MT15]

Is it hard to simply say that the only exceptions after viability is the life of the mother or fetus? Doctors can definitely make the diagnosis of a serious health risk, and that can be required by legislation. The problem has been not including the fetus in the assessment, so doctors have had to wait to remove dead fetuses.

Lots of times the fetus isn’t really dead - just will never survive after birth. Or the fetus takes days and days for cardiac activity to cease, all the while the woman is at risk. People who haven’t seen these heartbreaking cases don’t realize how tenuous a woman’s life or health is in these situations. We already have laws for allowing a person to die - it’s such a bad idea to further hamstring physicians from using their medical judgement. And taking away women’s rights to make a medical decision when it’s her life on the line to assuage some sort of religious conviction is just wrong. It’s not like the US has a good record with maternal health outcomes - we are possibly the worst among first world nations as it is.

And viability isn’t some magic threshold that can be legislated either. Some babies delivered at 22-23 weeks can survive, occasionally without any serious medical complications that will affect them for their whole life. But others born at 24-26 weeks do not make it, tragically so. There are so many variables. Not all babies develop at the same rate. But I can tell you that when a baby is in that range, and has no known fatal abnormalities-doctors and nurses will move heaven and earth to save that baby. I’ve seen it, I’ve prepared the blood transfusions, run their daily lab tests, cheered when they finally get discharged.

We don’t need the government trying to tell doctors how to do their jobs, nor women how to assess the risks to their lives. It’s insane.

 

[MT15]

I've largely found myself agreeing with your positions, particularly the doctor making medical decisions. That said, it seems to me there has to be a point where legal definitions are necessary to cover a variety of scenarios at different points in the pregnancy. Defining those parameters in legal terms is above my pay grade, but I do think protections for viable fetuses, the mother/father and her doctor are necessary and ultimately both legal and medical. I don't think the line drawn is at all clear. I do think viable fetuses should be protected, but I suspect you're right that as a general rule, doctors aren't aborting viable fetuses.

Viable fetuses are protected - they are people. They’re protected as soon as they exit the womb.

 

[DaveXA]

Viable fetuses are protected - they are people. They’re protected as soon as they exit the womb.

I understand that, but, to put a finer point on it, I'm saying viable fetuses should be protected while in the womb as well. Medical decisions still should largely based on the medical expertise of the doctor, but I don't think that's an unlimited rule of thumb. There may be scenarios where there are legal issues related to viable fetuses in the womb. I would say that a doctor needs to be the one who determines whether the fetus is viable, but there needs to be clearly defined criteria that are used to determine viability, which will clearly be more than just a point in time.

 

[Lapaz]

Viable fetuses are protected - they are people. They’re protected as soon as they exit the womb.

An abortion can kill a viable fetus before it is born. No restrictions would mean that would be legal. Democrats just have to say that only a diagnosis of a fatal condition in the fetus or serious health threat to the mother can justify a 3rd term abortion. The fetus doesn’t have to be dead already. The audience for these comments is for the Democrats to communicate to people that may misinterpret their stances. The legal term specifics don’t have to be hashed out to make that platform statement.

 

[MT15]

You guys are describing the system I am saying we should have. The doctor should decide viability. But I would add that there shouldn’t be legal definitions because that just won’t work. No set time limit will work for all cases, there’s a tremendous amount of variability.

Also, I think lawmakers don’t know enough to be setting up hoops for doctors and families to jump through. And I don’t trust any Rs to do it. They don’t care if women die - they’ve proven that.

Right now we largely trust doctors, patients and families with end-of-life decisions. We should trust them here too.

 

[J-DONK]

Once again - legislating some arbitrary number of weeks will kill some women. The example I just gave earlier was the woman who had her water break at 17 weeks. Accepted medical practice in this situation would be to terminate. Fetus isn’t viable and will die, woman is at risk of sepsis and death the longer this situation is allowed to go. Woman was forced to drive 400 miles to get treatment, once you arbitrarily make some 16 weeks a limit, you are just rolling the dice that she won’t die or get so seriously ill she will lose her uterus or kidney function to a raging infection.

This is a medical decision best left to the doctors and the women. Leave this to doctors and patients. If the fetus were viable, they would do a C-section or induce.

Healthy babies are not being aborted in the third trimester.

This is insane.

Most people are also fine with medical, rape, and incest. You guys can't really argue this point. The vast majority of Americans are not ok with anything past around 24 weeks. I'm not talking about anyone's rights either. I'm talking about polling, and what win's at the ballot box.

You are taking an extreme position when you say a women should be able to get an abortion at any point in her pregnancy up to the 9th month.

 

[MT15]

Most people are also fine with medical, rape, and incest. You guys can't really argue this point. The vast majority of Americans are not ok with anything past around 24 weeks. I'm not talking about anyone's rights either. I'm talking about polling, and what win's at the ballot box.

You are taking an extreme position when you say a women should be able to get an abortion at any point in her pregnancy up to the 9th month.

You seem to be shifting your opinion - suddenly now it’s 24 weeks and not 15?

What you are arguing is a red herring. There are zero women getting abortions in the 9th month-it never happens. If there is a horrible discovery in the 9th month, they will deliver the baby and then let the the parents hold the baby while it dies of whatever illness or abnormality they discovered that cannot be fixed. If there is a fixable abnormality, they will give the baby everything they can to keep it alive and treat it’s issues. There are no abortions in the 9th month. Ever.

It’s crazy to talk about this like it happens just every so often and all you are doing is showing that you don’t know much about this. It’s not an extreme position to say that women should have control over their own bodies.

What is extreme is the compulsion to control women’s reproductive health care from the state house. That’s extreme.

 

[MT15]

Back on topic. Here’s a race we haven’t talked too much about. Lee dirtied his hands with Trump’s attempt to steal the election. Hoping the voters turn him out.

 

[DaveXA]

You guys are describing the system I am saying we should have. The doctor should decide viability. But I would add that there shouldn’t be legal definitions because that just won’t work. No set time limit will work for all cases, there’s a tremendous amount of variability.

Also, I think lawmakers don’t know enough to be setting up hoops for doctors and families to jump through. And I don’t trust any Rs to do it. They don’t care if women die - they’ve proven that.

Right now we largely trust doctors, patients and families with end-of-life decisions. We should trust them here too.

We agree on the basic stuff. I just disagree that there isn't a legal aspect to pregnancy. For example, I do think someone who intentionally kills the late term fetus along with the mother, the killer should be charged with a double murder. They can't can't legally do that without legal definitions. I do think legal definitions should be guided by medical professionals though, rather than politicians.

Basically there should be some sort of ground rules for a variety of scenarios when involving a pregnant mother, to protect not only the mother, but her baby as well.

 

[MT15]

The problem is in setting those ground rules you are taking away the decision from the doctor. Especially if criminal charges are involved. I don’t think it’s possible to set realistic rules that won’t have unintended bad consequences.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Viable fetuses are protected - they are people. They’re protected as soon as they exit the womb.

I've been reading these last series of post and I noticed that the words "viable fetus" became a focus. I believe that a woman should be able to control her own body and medical decisions that relate to her body and her health. A viable fetus is defined as having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. To me, this sounds like a medical definition no different than a medical definition of brain death. If that's the case then if a doctor determines by medical science that a fetus has reached viability, then that doctor should be able to determine that the baby needs to be delivered rather than aborted.

My wife picked the delivery date for my daughter. If a woman decides she no longer wants a pregnancy and a medically qualified doctor determines that the fetus is viable, then the woman and the doctor should be able to decide to birth that child as soon as it is judged viable. If the state wants to step in and make medical decisions for women, then the state can take over custody and all financial responsibility for the viable fetus once it leaves the womb. This would be no different than giving up a child for adoption.

Maybe the next man diagnosed with prostate cancer should be denied radiation or chemo because doing so would destroy any "potential children" in his sack. That's no different than a fetus that hasn't reached viability. In both cases, the "potential child" cannot survive outside the womb.