Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

YOU brought it up, Elixir, not me. YOU.

Bullshit. Show me where I characterized “men”. You asked for an example of your irrationality, I gave it.

During the years that I worked in public health as a nurse, including in family planning, and a maternity clinic, not once did I ever meet a woman who waned to have an abortion in her third term.

To Ems, that’s proof that making it illegal is harmless.
Did you ever encounter a woman in distress due to a pregnancy, whose treatment was delayed or denied?
Probably not but I bet you know somebody who knows somebody.
Anyhow..,
I give up on Ems; as well intended as she may be, the inability to carry forth honestly in conversation on the subject, which was the very reason it came up, makes it less than worthwhile to try to engage. She refuses to support her “position”, won’t acknowledge that it elevates a fetus above a woman in some situations, and resorts to ad homs when it is pointed out that the laws she favors are harmful.

It’s bullshit and I’m too old, and too experienced, to let it pass just because it may be religiously correct to endorse token laws “restricting” abortion.
I’m sure Ems is a very nice person when not working these things out.

 

[Elixir]

I do NOT support killing a baby unless there's a really good medical reason to do so.

Just stop digging, Ems. You are not competent to judge medical reasons “good” or otherwise and neither is your congressman.
You support arming right wing extremists in their pursuit of power over women’s bodies.
Further, you can’t even provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a benefit such laws have conferred upon anyone.

Just fuck off with this bullshit.

 

[bilby]

The question is not whether late term abortions should be allowed in certain extreme circumstances. Everyone here seems to agree that they should.

The question is whether there should be a law about it.

Does having a law make things better, or worse?

In the absence of a law, each case is decided solely by the woman involved and the medical practitioner who performs the abortion.

In the presence of a law, in some cases where an abortion was medically necessary, concerns by medical staff that they may be unable to prove this necessity after the fact, might render that medical assistance unavailable.

In the absence of a law, in some cases where an abortion is not medically necessary, they may occur anyway.

If cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion because medical intervention is necessary, are far more common than cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion for reasons other than medical necessity, then a law of any kind will cause more harm than good.

I am seeing zero evidence that cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion for reasons other than medical necessity even exist, much less that such cases are common enough to justify even a small possibility that medically justified cases (which we all agree do exist) might be delayed or denied.

The task that (as I understand it) Elixir has set Emily, is to present that evidence, if she can find it. Have medically unnecessary third-trimester abortions occurred (or would they occur, in the absence of legal barriers to them) in numbers sufficient to outweigh the benefit of making medically necessary abortions even slightly more difficult to obtain in a timely fashion? What evidence is there of this?

The question here is, to reiterate, not "should such abortions be permitted in some cases?", as it seems that everyone agrees that the answer to that is "Yes".

The question is "should there be a law, or should the decision be enirely free from any legal considerations?"

That is, in this matter, are the consequences of authoritarianism better or worse than the consequences of freedom?

 

[southernhybrid]

The question is not whether late term abortions should be allowed in certain extreme circumstances. Everyone here seems to agree that they should.

The question is whether there should be a law about it.

Does having a law make things better, or worse?

In the absence of a law, each case is decided solely by the woman involved and the medical practitioner who performs the abortion.

In the presence of a law, in some cases where an abortion was medically necessary, concerns by medical staff that they may be unable to prove this necessity after the fact, might render that medical assistance unavailable.

In the absence of a law, in some cases where an abortion is not medically necessary, they may occur anyway.

If cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion because medical intervention is necessary, are far more common than cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion for reasons other than medical necessity, then a law of any kind will cause more harm than good.

I am seeing zero evidence that cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion for reasons other than medical necessity even exist, much less that such cases are common enough to justify even a small possibility that medically justified cases (which we all agree do exist) might be delayed or denied.

The task that (as I understand it) Elixir has set Emily, is to present that evidence, if she can find it. Have medically unnecessary third-trimester abortions occurred (or would they occur, in the absence of legal barriers to them) in numbers sufficient to outweigh the benefit of making medically necessary abortions even slightly more difficult to obtain in a timely fashion? What evidence is there of this?

The question here is, to reiterate, not "should such abortions be permitted in some cases?", as it seems that everyone agrees that the answer to that is "Yes".

The question is "should there be a law, or should the decision be enirely free from any legal considerations?"

That is, in this matter, are the consequences of authoritarianism better or worse than the consequences of freedom?

That was my point, even if I worded it differently. A woman should have total autonomy over her body, including when she is carrying a fetus. In fact, we should all have that right. Older adults are often pushed to have aggressive medical care, when they don't want it. I've witnessed this numerous times. it's expensive and often only prolongs suffering. Whether it's an abortion or the right to end one's own suffering, that should not be prohibited by any laws. But, if the Dems push these things, the Reps will do their best to make it look like the Dems support murder. They are pretty good at using scare tactics.

 

[Elixir]

If <conditions specified by Emily Lake are met> then by all means I completely support termination in the last trimester.

Yah sure Ems. You gonna be the appointed authority who decides if your conditions are met?
How are you going to determine if your conditions are met? Send your Congressman?
I suggest that the only parties qualified to make that decision are the mother, her doctor and possibly her partner. Convince me that someone else should be in that conversation.
Why you want to involve judges and lawyers while women bleed out, is beyond me.

 

[Elixir]

The question here is, to reiterate, not "should such abortions be permitted in some cases?", as it seems that everyone agrees that the answer to that is "Yes".

I predict that Ems will re-phrase the question and pretend it still needs to be resolved.

Sheesh - all this AGAIN, just because Ems refused to acknowledge the hypocrisy in which she has indulged, and demanded an example.

 

[Elixir]

I really find it weird when men so vociferously argue for late-term voluntary abortions

It is disgustingly disingenuous of you to construe that I am “for” abortion whatsoever.
I have had to endure it with my partner multiple times. Her life has been under threat from pregnancy Has yours?

IF HER LIFE IS UNDER THREAT THEN BY ALL MEANS TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY!

if I am understanding Elixir correctly then the point is the woman should just be able to do that, not have to convince a lawyer/judge that she should be able to do that, which is what would happen if a ban were in place (even one with an exception for her in place). And that in some cases could put undue hardship on her, depending on the state she’s in and what kind of judges they have in that state.

Maybe I am misunderstanding Elixir. don’t know. But even lately there have been cases of women not getting or encointering potentially harming delays in the treatment they deserve because doctors fear making the case that these cases fit the exception.

but then again I am man so maybe my opinion doesn’t matter to you on this subject.

You’re spot on, not misunderstanding me. You are just not as strident - perhaps overly strident - as I am. And maybe more like “calmly objective”.

My stridency is probably due to how close to home this issue hits. Yes, it makes me angry to see ignorant people making lofty pronouncement about how it “should be” when I KNOW FIRST HAND that they’re out to lunch.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question here is, to reiterate, not "should such abortions be permitted in some cases?", as it seems that everyone agrees that the answer to that is "Yes".

I predict that Ems will re-phrase the question and pretend it still needs to be resolved.

Sheesh - all this AGAIN, just because Ems refused to acknowledge the hypocrisy in which she has indulged, and demanded an example.

If a woman goes into the hospital with a near ruptured appendix, no one in the hospital needs to fill out paperwork for the Government, call the police, call the Department of Health. The professionals do their stuff and provide the woman the health care she requires.

If a woman goes in the hospital with an unviable third term fetus, and some version of third terms are illegal, the hospital won't just go to work. There will be bureaucracy involved. In fact, it is the only thing that seems to have bureaucracy involved, oddly enough only impacts women. She doesn't appreciate that her insistence on the life of a baby will provide a number of hurdles to save a woman's life. Hurdles that are grossly unethical. All so that a law can exist to protect babies that weren't getting aborted in the first place.

 

[Elixir]

If a woman goes in the hospital with an unviable third term fetus, and some version of third terms are illegal, the hospital won't just go to work. There will be bureaucracy involved. In fact, it is the only thing that seems to have bureaucracy involved, oddly enough only impacts women.

It only impacts women because there is no way to levy the same hardships against POC. They would if they could, I’m fairly sure.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here's your original accusation:

... But since you think using strawmen is "a long and well recognized habit" of hers, you should have no trouble exhibiting a better example, which we can review together.

Here you go. Three strawmen all in one post by EL.
<bad example snipped>

My opinion is probably a direct reflection of others’ opinions of me, but I feel compelled to offer it nonetheless.
I think Emily is unpracticed at maintaining logical consistency or the application of reason to thorny problems, but is rather habituated to issuing conditioned responses when challenged for that. I recognize it in her because I recognize it in myself. Unfortunately she seems to lack such recognition, and so draws a curtain on questions that challenge those limits, without even attempting to answer or even think about them. Prime example: her irrational advocacies for laws that hurt people and benefit nobody, but comport with religious edicts. That is the sort of pig that becomes a lipstick magnet the moment Emily lays eyes on it. <et cetera>

Here's where Emily exhibited somebody the laws at issue benefit:

medically justified abortions for the last trimester.

That’s what I said.
Jump through legal hoops to obtain healthcare in the 3rd.

* benefits NOBODY

Except the babies that would otherwise be killed, of course.
...

Here's where you de facto stipulated that she exhibited somebody:

...
I AM ARGUING AGAINST ABORTION BANS. Including late term ones.
Give me your argument FOR them or STFU.*
“I already did”, isn’t an argument btw.
So far all we got is your willingness to elevate the rights of fetuses over those of people upon whom the fetus depends.

* Please include statistics

You referenced the benefited party whose rights she's elevating, and your request for statistics is a change of subject, from whether the benefited party exists at all, to how numerous they are in comparison to the people those laws hurt. I.e., the original accusation that started this whole abortion subthread, "Prime example: her irrational advocacies for laws that hurt people and benefit nobody, but comport with religious edicts.", turns out to be unsupported, and the rest of the subthread has not been about the merits of a left-winger's accusation against a pretty typical ideologically impure Democrat, but rather about the merits of late-term abortion laws. It's not clear what late-term abortion laws have to do with post-morteming the election. And we do currently have an active Roe-v-Wade thread for debating abortion law.

 

[Elixir]

You referenced the benefited party

Party?
Parties are all well and good I guess.
When it comes to legislation though, I prefer that it benefit PEOPLE.

irrational advocacies for laws that hurt people and benefit nobody, but comport with religious edicts

Is 100% supported.
By contorting “fetus” into “the party” you are trying to sneak an unsupported assumption that fetuses are people, and of equal value to that of the mother, into the discussion.
You are of course welcome to a belief that fetuses are people, but I disagree with that OPINION and find it self evident that elevating their rights above those of people, is harmful to people.

we do currently have an active Roe-v-Wade thread for debating abortion law.

It’s not my fault tha Ems demanded the above example of her … uh … dissembly, for lack of a more acceptable term, in THIS thread.

 

[Emily Lake]

During the years that I worked in public health as a nurse, including in family planning, and a maternity clinic, not once did I ever meet a woman who waned to have an abortion in her third term. I've never heard of anyone wanting one that late, so I doubt it ever happens.

Look, I get the doubt. I understand the gut reaction involved here.

But evidence has been presented several times on this topic demonstrating that it absolutely does happen. And when there's nothing wrong with either the infant or the mother, I have a very big problem with that.

There are a whole lot of things that shouldn't happen, and that reasonable ethical people find abhorrent. And to most of us, we struggle to understand that such things do happen... because we would never ever contemplate it, and we think it's a horrific idea. But just because we reasonable people think it shouldn't happen doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. That's why we make laws and regulations against things that seem like outliers.

We shouldn't have to have laws against bestiality on the books - no reasonable person should ever even contemplate having sex with an animal, and I'm sure that none of us know anyone who has ever admitted to ever doing such a thing, we probably don't even know anyone who has ever even considered it! But it does happen, even if it's rare. And because it does happen we have laws against it.

 

[Emily Lake]

I do NOT support killing a baby unless there's a really good medical reason to do so.

Just stop digging, Ems. You are not competent to judge medical reasons “good” or otherwise and neither is your congressman.
You support arming right wing extremists in their pursuit of power over women’s bodies.
Further, you can’t even provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a benefit such laws have conferred upon anyone.

I do not support arming right wing extremists! I support the entirely liberal position of re-instituting Roe v Wade as it previously existed! Stop fucking lying.

Just fuck off with this bullshit.

Shove your bullshit, you liar.

 

[Emily Lake]

The question is not whether late term abortions should be allowed in certain extreme circumstances. Everyone here seems to agree that they should.

The question is whether there should be a law about it.

Does having a law make things better, or worse?

In the absence of a law, each case is decided solely by the woman involved and the medical practitioner who performs the abortion.

In the presence of a law, in some cases where an abortion was medically necessary, concerns by medical staff that they may be unable to prove this necessity after the fact, might render that medical assistance unavailable.

In the absence of a law, in some cases where an abortion is not medically necessary, they may occur anyway.

If cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion because medical intervention is necessary, are far more common than cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion for reasons other than medical necessity, then a law of any kind will cause more harm than good.

I am seeing zero evidence that cases where a woman seeks a late term abortion for reasons other than medical necessity even exist, much less that such cases are common enough to justify even a small possibility that medically justified cases (which we all agree do exist) might be delayed or denied.

The task that (as I understand it) Elixir has set Emily, is to present that evidence, if she can find it. Have medically unnecessary third-trimester abortions occurred (or would they occur, in the absence of legal barriers to them) in numbers sufficient to outweigh the benefit of making medically necessary abortions even slightly more difficult to obtain in a timely fashion? What evidence is there of this?

The question here is, to reiterate, not "should such abortions be permitted in some cases?", as it seems that everyone agrees that the answer to that is "Yes".

The question is "should there be a law, or should the decision be enirely free from any legal considerations?"

That is, in this matter, are the consequences of authoritarianism better or worse than the consequences of freedom?

My counter to this is quite simple:

Please provide a reasonable argument AGAINST Roe v Wade as it existed for my entire life. Please provide evidence of the many women who were harmed or killed by Roe v Wade.

 

[Elixir]

I do not support arming right wing extremists!

Then stop doing it.

I support the entirely liberal position of re-instituting Roe v Wade as it previously existed

Which enabled RW extremists to harm women seeking needed theirs trimester abortion. Adding “entirely liberal” to your description doesn’t help.
So you’re doing it again.

 

[Elixir]

Why are you so opposed to Roe v Wade?

I did not oppose RvW, because it was a step forward, and the best we could do at the time in the face of ‘Murkin religiosity. Which is now the face you’re putting forward with your superstitious elevation of a third trimester fetus’ “personhood” over that of the mother.
Once again, the hypocrisy of RvW would be a welcome reduction in the RW’s weaponry against bodily autonomy right now. But the 3t provision was still a concession to the misogyny of the right.

 

[Emily Lake]

The question here is, to reiterate, not "should such abortions be permitted in some cases?", as it seems that everyone agrees that the answer to that is "Yes".

I predict that Ems will re-phrase the question and pretend it still needs to be resolved.

Sheesh - all this AGAIN, just because Ems refused to acknowledge the hypocrisy in which she has indulged, and demanded an example.

If a woman goes into the hospital with a near ruptured appendix, no one in the hospital needs to fill out paperwork for the Government, call the police, call the Department of Health. The professionals do their stuff and provide the woman the health care she requires.

If a woman goes in the hospital with an unviable third term fetus, and some version of third terms are illegal, the hospital won't just go to work. There will be bureaucracy involved. In fact, it is the only thing that seems to have bureaucracy involved, oddly enough only impacts women. She doesn't appreciate that her insistence on the life of a baby will provide a number of hurdles to save a woman's life. Hurdles that are grossly unethical. All so that a law can exist to protect babies that weren't getting aborted in the first place.

Please provide some modicum of supporting evidence for all of the delays and bureaucracy that occurred under Roe v Wade.

FFS, I'm being burned at the fucking stake for literally wanting to reinstitute exactly the same approach that was in place for my whole goddamned life! You and Elixir and others keep trotting out these horror stories of what you imagine might happen under a version of law that you've added your own bullshit to, for no other reason that to make it sound like it's somehow abhorrent to hold the view that the overwhelming majority of women support, and which is exactly how it worked for essentially all of our lives!

This is insanity. Like seriously, this is craziness from you guys.

I want Roe v Wade reinstated exactly as it was.

Why exactly is that a problem for you?

 

[Emily Lake]

I do not support arming right wing extremists!

Then stop doing it.

I support the entirely liberal position of re-instituting Roe v Wade as it previously existed

Which enabled RW extremists to harm women seeking needed theirs trimester abortion. Adding “entirely liberal” to your description doesn’t help.
So you’re doing it again.

Let me get this straight... your position is thar Roe v Wade was a bad law that hurt women. Is that an accurate interpretation of your argument?

 

[Emily Lake]

Why are you so opposed to Roe v Wade?

I did not oppose RvW, because it was a step forward, and the best we could do at the time in the face of ‘Murkin religiosity. Which is now the face you’re putting forward with your superstitious elevation of a third trimester fetus’ “personhood” over that of the mother.
Once again, the hypocrisy of RvW would be a welcome reduction in the RW’s weaponry against bodily autonomy right now. But the 3t provision was still a concession to the misogyny of the right.

And your position that a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection, and doesn't even count as a person is an absolutely abhorrent and disgusting view in my opinion.

And you won't even back off of your high horse long enough to give this a second of real thought. I'm not elevating the baby above the mother - if there's any risk at all to the mother, the mother 100% wins. On the other hand, you're elevating the mother's feeling of convenience over the life of a goddamned baby.

FFS, you're only half a breath away from thinking it's perfectly fine for a mother to drown her newborn if she changes her mind and doesn't want to be a mom anymore.

 

[Elixir]

your position that a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection

Is an invention of your less-than-honest mind.
Fuck that shit. If you can’t make your case without imputing ridiculousness, your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare.

The entire argument you've made is...

And again. That’s not my argument.
Fuck that shit, and you, if you keep doing it. .