Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

The entire argument you've made is...

Not anything you seem able to understand.
I’ll take the hit for that - I can’t teach pigeons to play chess worth a damn either.

 

[laughing dog]

I want Roe v Wade reinstated exactly as it was.

Why exactly is that a problem for you?

It is not a problem for me. It certainly would be a gigantic step forward from the current situation.

IMO, the state should simply butt out of medical issues and allow the licensed medical professional and the client decide what is in the client's best interest. I do agree that there will be instances where a choice will be made that disturbs or upsets me. But I think that potential harm of interfering with the practice of medicine is greater than the instances that might upset or disturb the public.

Frankly, what bothers the most about this issue in the public is that there is a goddamn lot of "mansplaining" by men on an issue that has serious direct medical effects and emotional issues on women that far outweigh those on men in general. Most of the state legislatures that place restrictions on abortion are dominated by men, many whom seem completely misinformed or misogynistic about women and life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

* makes a handy platform for controlling and harming women

QED.

i don’t know why you want to re-litigate this stupidity.

I really find it weird when men so vociferously argue for late-term voluntary abortions without any medical justification, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of women don't support them.

The problem is you keep misrepresenting the situation. The "voluntary" abortions are because something's gone wrong. We didn't have a problem before, there's no reason to crack down on something that wasn't happening. (And that "research" you presented was seriously lacking in the hallmarks of good research.) On the other side, though, we have plenty of cases where the anti-abortion forces have made it very clear they won't accept medical abortions. Rule #1: there is no medical reason for abortion. There is no rule #2, pay no attention to the dead women. Last I knew three women had been sacrificed on this altar.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Okay. Let's start here.

Do you believe that a baby two days prior to delivery has any personhood that merits some element of protection?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At some point in the process, it's not a zygote anymore, it's a fetus. At another point, it's no longer a fetus and becomes a baby. We can squabble about exactly when that point is... but it's a reasonable generality that during that last trimester, it's pretty much a baby. I know it seems completely bonkers to you that anyone would ever be opposed to killing babies unless there was a very good reason for doing so, but well, here I am: I oppose killing babies unless there's a really good reason for it.

Seriously, why is it so difficult for you guys to grasp that I am still fully supportive of late term abortions when there's a really good reason for it?

You need to demonstrate said baby-killing. Simple decision matrix:

Woman healthy/endangered
Fetus healthy/damaged
Four options.

WH/FH: This one is the bogeyman being used to justify sacrificing women--but we have no evidence they exist.
WH/FD: These are the ones that the Gilead crowd pretends are voluntary. Yeah, in many cases she could go to term but that just adds to her medical problems without producing any benefit. And in many cases where the defects aren't fatal it's a matter of inflicting a lifetime of suffering.
WE/FH: This will normally be resolved by delivery, not abortion.
WE/FD: Most of these come down to whether the fetus takes her with it. And the Gilead crowd denies the reality. Last I knew they were up to three sacrifices, I would be surprised if there aren't more that people have been afraid to go public with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At some point in the process, a woman bleeds out in a parking lot.

This is the dumbest fucking rejoinder.

If the life of the mother is in any way endangered, if her health is at risk, if the infant is unviable, if the infant has a severe deformation or condition that will cause lifelong problems, and any number of other possible medically justifiable situations arises, then by all means I completely support termination in the last trimester.

Seriously, the fact that the ONLY argument you and Elixir and others keep trotting out is one I've already granted as an exception rather demonstrates that you're not using your brains about this one bit. Use your brain.

You say this, but you keep arguing against the basically empty set. And we are very used to the "pro-life" (very few of them are) crowd pretending the medical reasons do not exist. Do you understand why many of us feel your position doesn't match what you say it is?

 

[Emily Lake]

I want Roe v Wade reinstated exactly as it was.

Why exactly is that a problem for you?

It is not a problem for me. It certainly would be a gigantic step forward from the current situation.

Unless you've been cosplaying as Jimmy Higgins for a couple of decades, that wasn't directed at you

IMO, the state should simply butt out of medical issues and allow the licensed medical professional and the client decide what is in the client's best interest. I do agree that there will be instances where a choice will be made that disturbs or upsets me. But I think that potential harm of interfering with the practice of medicine is greater than the instances that might upset or disturb the public.

I don't want to interfere with medicine. Look, we have a whole lot of laws that prevent euthanasia of humans with terminal illnesses. We have laws about prescribing opioids, and limits on how many and in what circumstances they can be given. We have laws against lobotomizing patients. We have a LOT of laws that limit the practice of medicine. We already interfere in medicine - and it's not entirely unreasonable, especially when there are risks to the person (or persons) being treated.

A doctor under RvW was never prohibited from taking medically appropriate action, they never had to get permission first. And nobody was left to die and bleed out because of RvW. All it did was to specify that at some point, the fetus is a baby and therefore also worthy of protection from undue harm. All it did was clarify that late occurring decisions to no longer want a baby did not constitute sufficient reason to kill that baby. When there was any risk to the mother, or if the fetus was unviable or severely damaged, there was never a barrier to termination - nor should there be.

Butting out of medical issues and letting the doctor and patient decide sounds like a really good idea. And from a theoretical standpoint, I support it. But we've seen many examples throughout history of doctors making some incredibly bad decisions, and engaging in behaviors toward their patients that should never have been allowed to happen. Sometimes, setting boundaries is the appropriate thing to do.

Frankly, what bothers the most about this issue in the public is that there is a goddamn lot of "mansplaining" by men on an issue that has serious direct medical effects and emotional issues on women that far outweigh those on men in general. Most of the state legislatures that place restrictions on abortion are dominated by men, many whom seem completely misinformed or misogynistic about women and life.

I agree on both counts.

The vast majority of women hold the same view that I do.

 

[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.

Okay. Let's start here.

Do you believe that a baby two days prior to delivery has any personhood that merits some element of protection?

Emily, do I have to post in all caps or something?

My position:
ALL decisions regarding abortion, should be made between the patient, their spouse if applicable, and their doctor.
Under NO circumstances do I favor getting legislators or law enforcement personnel involved in those decisions.

Your position as I understand it:
Decisions should be up to the same parties I named, except in the third trimester when it becomes appropriate for legislators and/or law enforcement to get involved in those decisions.

If I misunderstand your position feel free to clarify.
If you still don't get my position, just ask; don't go assuming I favor killing babies or saying I assign zero value to fetuses etc..

It ain't that complicated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody needs to convince a lawyer or judge, and certainly not ahead of time. That's why it's not a fucking ban!

JFC. What I want is exactly what was in place for almost all of my life, what was in place under Roe v. Wade. That didn't result in tons of women bleeding out in parking lots, nor in them having to get special dispensation from a judge ahead of time, nor any of the other "omg sky is falling" scenarios that keep getting trotted out as an argument against reinstating RvW!

In other words, you admit there wasn't a problem.

And our only problem with RvW is that while things used to be sane on the medical side they no longer are. Doctors are denying clearly needed abortions for fear of legal prosecution. And they're sacrificing women in the process. And even if the doctor wants to do the right thing the hospital won't let them.

 

[TomC]

In other words, you admit there wasn't a problem.

You actually quoted her saying it.

JFC. What I want is exactly what was in place for almost all of my life, what was in place under Roe v. Wade.

How hard is that?
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Do you believe that a baby two days prior to delivery has any personhood that merits some element of protection?

Stupid "gotcha" question.

"Two days prior to delivery" doesn't apply to any actual situation at all. If the delivery takes place in two days and you kill the baby, that's murder.
If there's some reason for a last minute abortion, I sure as fuck don't want your congressman in the room with me, my wife and my doctor. That is a nightmare situation and the LAST place legislators belong.

If there's no reason for the last minute abortion, the doctor should refuse to do it. He does not need a cop standing at his shoulder*.

There DO arise situations where the choice is save the baby or save the mother. In those situations saving the mother has traditionally been understood in the US to be the way to go because the mom can make another baby and the baby cannot make another mom. But again I'd leave it up to the family not some congresscritter.

* unless (s)he already belongs in jail with their med license revoked. That's why they take the Hippocratic oath.

Does that make anything any clearer for you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

You are treating it as a single entity--nope, it had already been undermined by the right. Consider, for example, the prohibition on an D&X--thus forcing some women to have c-sections to remove a brainless fetus because the skull was too big to be delivered vaginally. We are fine with the 1973 RvW, not with the 2020 RvW.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

* makes a handy platform for controlling and harming women

QED.

i don’t know why you want to re-litigate this stupidity.

I really find it weird when men so vociferously argue for late-term voluntary abortions without any medical justification, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of women don't support them.

The problem is you keep misrepresenting the situation. The "voluntary" abortions are because something's gone wrong.

No, they're not always because something has gone wrong. Most of them are, and I absolutely support taking action in those cases.

We didn't have a problem before, there's no reason to crack down on something that wasn't happening.

And if we didn't have a problem before, then I don't see why there's any need to remove the restrictions that were in place before either.

(And that "research" you presented was seriously lacking in the hallmarks of good research.) On the other side, though, we have plenty of cases where the anti-abortion forces have made it very clear they won't accept medical abortions. Rule #1: there is no medical reason for abortion. There is no rule #2, pay no attention to the dead women. Last I knew three women had been sacrificed on this altar.

Great, take your argument to the pro-lifers then.

 

[Emily Lake]

At some point in the process, it's not a zygote anymore, it's a fetus. At another point, it's no longer a fetus and becomes a baby. We can squabble about exactly when that point is... but it's a reasonable generality that during that last trimester, it's pretty much a baby. I know it seems completely bonkers to you that anyone would ever be opposed to killing babies unless there was a very good reason for doing so, but well, here I am: I oppose killing babies unless there's a really good reason for it.

Seriously, why is it so difficult for you guys to grasp that I am still fully supportive of late term abortions when there's a really good reason for it?

You need to demonstrate said baby-killing. Simple decision matrix:

Woman healthy/endangered
Fetus healthy/damaged
Four options.

WH/FH: This one is the bogeyman being used to justify sacrificing women--but we have no evidence they exist.

Is third‐trimester abortion exceptional? Two pathways to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the United States - PMC

In the United States, third‐trimester abortions are substantially more expensive, difficult to obtain, and stigmatized than first‐trimester abortions. However, the circumstances that lead to someone needing a third‐trimester abortion may have ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

At least two of those cases that did NOT involve barriers to access abortions earlier were cases where both the mother and the infant were healthy. While rare, they certainly DO exist.

WH/FD: These are the ones that the Gilead crowd pretends are voluntary. Yeah, in many cases she could go to term but that just adds to her medical problems without producing any benefit. And in many cases where the defects aren't fatal it's a matter of inflicting a lifetime of suffering.
WE/FH: This will normally be resolved by delivery, not abortion.
WE/FD: Most of these come down to whether the fetus takes her with it. And the Gilead crowd denies the reality. Last I knew they were up to three sacrifices, I would be surprised if there aren't more that people have been afraid to go public with.

I find it so very odd that you guys are so opposed to reasonable restrictions late in pregnancy. Hell, most European countries place limits on how far along a pregnancy can be for terminations, some with limits much much earlier than I would consider reasonable. And I'm not talking about eastern european, heavily orthodox countries, I'm talking about Germany, France, and Spain.

I'm starting to think that some of you are so reflexively ingrained to oppose anything that you perceive as even being vaguely at risk of touching on something right wing that you're not really thinking about this at all. You just oppose it, vociferously and harshly, and you don't even care that the vast majority of women support having some reasonable restrictions in place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't want to interfere with medicine. Look, we have a whole lot of laws that prevent euthanasia of humans with terminal illnesses. We have laws about prescribing opioids, and limits on how many and in what circumstances they can be given. We have laws against lobotomizing patients. We have a LOT of laws that limit the practice of medicine. We already interfere in medicine - and it's not entirely unreasonable, especially when there are risks to the person (or persons) being treated.

And we already go too far in sticking government noses into medical decisions.

A doctor under RvW was never prohibited from taking medically appropriate action, they never had to get permission first. And nobody was left to die and bleed out because of RvW. All it did was to specify that at some point, the fetus is a baby and therefore also worthy of protection from undue harm. All it did was clarify that late occurring decisions to no longer want a baby did not constitute sufficient reason to kill that baby. When there was any risk to the mother, or if the fetus was unviable or severely damaged, there was never a barrier to termination - nor should there be.

Except that was not the case by the time Dobbs rolled around. RvW was based on good faith that no longer exists. One side abused it, one side didn't.

Butting out of medical issues and letting the doctor and patient decide sounds like a really good idea. And from a theoretical standpoint, I support it. But we've seen many examples throughout history of doctors making some incredibly bad decisions, and engaging in behaviors toward their patients that should never have been allowed to happen. Sometimes, setting boundaries is the appropriate thing to do.

And we have more examples of politicians doing so.

 

[Emily Lake]

At some point in the process, a woman bleeds out in a parking lot.

This is the dumbest fucking rejoinder.

If the life of the mother is in any way endangered, if her health is at risk, if the infant is unviable, if the infant has a severe deformation or condition that will cause lifelong problems, and any number of other possible medically justifiable situations arises, then by all means I completely support termination in the last trimester.

Seriously, the fact that the ONLY argument you and Elixir and others keep trotting out is one I've already granted as an exception rather demonstrates that you're not using your brains about this one bit. Use your brain.

You say this, but you keep arguing against the basically empty set. And we are very used to the "pro-life" (very few of them are) crowd pretending the medical reasons do not exist. Do you understand why many of us feel your position doesn't match what you say it is?

I understand that many of you are working from a position of "right wing bad" and can't step back from that reflex enough to realize that this isn't a right wing positions at all. It's the completely liberal position that is supported by the vast majority of women, and Democrats, and well, almost all developed countries.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Okay. Let's start here.

Do you believe that a baby two days prior to delivery has any personhood that merits some element of protection?

Emily, do I have to post in all caps or something?

My position:
ALL decisions regarding abortion, should be made between the patient, their spouse if applicable, and their doctor.
Under NO circumstances do I favor getting legislators or law enforcement personnel involved in those decisions.

Your position as I understand it:
Decisions should be up to the same parties I named, except in the third trimester when it becomes appropriate for legislators and/or law enforcement to get involved in those decisions.

If I misunderstand your position feel free to clarify.
If you still don't get my position, just ask; don't go assuming I favor killing babies or saying I assign zero value to fetuses etc..

It ain't that complicated.

You understand incorrectly, and continue to do so despite me having been very clear about it.

Decisions should be up to the patient and their doctor. Spouses only get a say if the patient *wants* to give them a say.
Legislators aren't involved in the decision - laws set boundaries on what situations are allowable. This is no different than laws in place on what situations allow for euthanasia, what situations allow for lobotomies, what situations allow for taking someone off of life support. Legislators aren't involved in any of the individual decisions, the only set boundary conditions under which doctors and patients operate.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you believe that a baby two days prior to delivery has any personhood that merits some element of protection?

Stupid "gotcha" question.

"Two days prior to delivery" doesn't apply to any actual situation at all. If the delivery takes place in two days and you kill the baby, that's murder.
If there's some reason for a last minute abortion, I sure as fuck don't want your congressman in the room with me, my wife and my doctor. That is a nightmare situation and the LAST place legislators belong.

If there's no reason for the last minute abortion, the doctor should refuse to do it. He does not need a cop standing at his shoulder*.

There DO arise situations where the choice is save the baby or save the mother. In those situations saving the mother has traditionally been understood in the US to be the way to go because the mom can make another baby and the baby cannot make another mom. But again I'd leave it up to the family not some congresscritter.

* unless (s)he already belongs in jail with their med license revoked. That's why they take the Hippocratic oath.

Does that make anything any clearer for you?

Okay, let's take a look at the red bit, because that's where you and I are completely failing to communicate.

You say if there's no medical reason for a later abortion, the doctor should refuse to do it. I would agree with you on that.

The problem is that you're also approaching this from a position of legally guaranteed *rights*. You have taken a position that gives women the absolute *right* to have abortions for whatever reason they want, without question, without any boundaries being imposed, and without any restrictions at all.

Do you understand that in that situation, if a doctor refused to perform the abortion at 35 weeks that the women was legally entitled to as a result of your policy, that doctor would be violating the woman's rights?

 

[Elixir]

No, they're not always because something has gone wrong.

Can you cite a few such cases? I'll take your word for it if you say you've seen credible reports that some mother (got in a bad mood one day or something) changed her mind at the last minute after 9 months of carrying the "child", she opts to kill it, and finds a doctor to serve as accessory. (National Inquirer is not a credible source )

Probably not as common as mothers killing babies or children well after they're born, but that IS illegal as I'm sure we agree it should be.
Also I would guess, less common than people bleeding out late term waiting for an abortion.

Something HAS gone wrong EVERY TIME a women bleeds out or dies of sepsis in a parking lot. Especially late in the pregnancy.
Overall, laws that ban abortion hurt people and help only lawyers and legislators who need to work out their control neuroses (most all of them).
Late in a pregnancy is the WORST time to cause medical professionals to have second thoughts about administering healthcare.

I recently lost my cat of 20+ years. I remember when my vet's 8yr old daughter and her little girlfriend brought a box of orphaned kittens (Mom was a semi-feral barn cat) to my barn and Mrs. E wanted to keep one ... the sick little thing could hardly breathe and her nose needed aspirating every few hours. I thought more than once that we should have refused her.
I hardly valued her at that moment, even though we needed a cat.
Eventually she got healthy, but never got big, topping out under 7lbs.
Twenty years later, don't even ask if I value her.
It's not a binary thing, believe it or not.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Before I can properly reply to this post, it would help if you can clarify your position on a certain point...

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. ... If you can’t make your case without imputing ridiculousness, your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare.

You are making yourself appear to be holding the position that a late-term fetus* is not a person when you're talking to me but is a person when you're talking to Emily. I'm guessing that that's not your actual position, since it's ridiculous, but hey, you're the one who chose to make yourself look ridiculous. So please clarify your position. In your view, is a late-term fetus a person or not?

If that's not a proper binary question in your view because "late-term" impermissibly lumps together RvW-viable 26-week fetuses with Emily-question 38.72-week fetuses, then feel free to clarify how many weeks after conception it is that you think a fetus becomes a person at.

(* per Merriam-Webster:
fetus:
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth)