Roe v Wade is on deck

[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?

Why do you keep inventing scenarios without statistics? Do you know any OBGYNs who complain about that happening, or would participate in killing an obviously viable late term fetus? My brother is a general practitioner MD with subspecs in ob and pediatrics. I've actually asked about these things happening with any regularity. In 40+ years of private practice and Hospital staff, he's "not that I know of". Of course there's some chatter at CME conferences and stuff, but there's there's also chatter about using South American ants as sutures. And that comes with pictures! Pregnancy is high risk for mom, far more so for the fetus. But that kind of assumption - that pregnancy needs oversight because women can't be trusted not to change their minds at the last minute - ridiculous. You'd have to PROVE to me that the vast, I mean VAST preponderance of harm is done to viable somewhat "normal" fetuses by not having these laws, rather than to women by having them.
If it's even close, tie goes to the woman. The invasion of privacy alone would outweigh any government intervention or punitive action for elective healthcare. That would make it simple.

You've completely avoided even trying to answer the question. So let's step back and try again.

As far as i can tell, your position is that it should be a legal right for a woman to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy with zero interference of any sort.

I'll pause here, and allow you to correct me if I've got your postion wrong. If it's wrong, please provide a succinct version of what your actual position is.

Carrying on, with the assumption that my understanding of your position is accurate (obviously, this is moot if it isn't)... let's talk about principles.

If A is a legal right granted to Person X, and Person Y prevents or interferes with that person's enactment of A, it is my understanding that Person Y would be violating the rights of Person X.

Do you disagree with my understanding of how rights function?

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.

You have taken the position that in certain circumstances the government may delay or deny a woman's healthcare.

I have not. I have, however, taken the position that in some circumstances it's not healthcare. I also hold the position that non-reconstructive nose jobs are not healthcare, that liposuction is not health care, and that lip filler is not healthcare.

 

[Emily Lake]

That sounds like bullshit to me. Have you ever personally known a woman who was healthy who decided to have a late term abortion? Fro that matter, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to even find a doctor who would do one on a healthy woman who was in the third trimester. I've known, worked with and cared for plenty of poor women who were thrilled to be having a baby, regardless of whether there was a man in her life, whether she had insurance etc. There are plenty of programs that help pay for childbirth for poor women. I actually got help when I had mine 54 years ago. My ex and I had no insurance and his income was low enough for me to quality. I had to pay 600 dollars for the entire thing. We did it in small increments. Very poor women get Medicaid coverage for childbirth. Well, at least for now.

The 25 year old daughter of a friend of mine who recently had a baby had little money and may not have had insurance. She has already broken up with the father, although he is helping her care for the baby. She simply wanted to be a mother. She is living with her family and seems quite happy. Not that I think that was a good idea, but it's none of my business if other women feel they need to have children to feel fulfilled. I've yet to meet a healthy woman that wanted a late term abortion. Doctors don't do them just because someone wants one. If they don't want the baby, there are lots of people waiting to adopt a baby. One of my former patients decided to give up her baby for adoption and there was no shortage of people wanting that baby. But again, we've strayed way off topic, haven't we?

What you mean OTHER THAN the report that I've provided multiple times?

In that report...

A) One of the case studies mentioned a healthy mother and healthy fetus, whose relationship ended and she did not want the baby. She hadn't really wanted it to begin with, but went along with it because the father wanted the baby. When their relationship was over, she sought an abortion even though it was in the third trimester.

B) Two of the case studies involved situations where the healthy mother could not afford an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, due to clinics requiring travel or funds not being available to subsidize the cost of the abortion. There was nothing wrong with the fetus which was terminated in the third trimester.

C) Two of the case studies involved the healthy mother not being aware that she was pregnant with a health fetus until she was in the third trimester. Upon learning that she was pregnant with a healthy fetus, both mothers chose to abort.

And just so we're crystal clear here... this represents 5 cases out of 28 women interviewed specifically on the topic of third trimester terminations. I've only considered the last two when I talk about terminations in which both the mother and the baby are health, because I grant that extenuating circumstances exist in the other three. For case A, one could argue that the mother's partner prevented her from obtaining an earlier abortion and thus interfered in her decision. For case B, I assume that such situations are a direct result of RvW being overturned, and that such a situation would be negated if it were reinstated.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I live in Kansas. One of my Senators is Roger Marshall. He was an OB/GYN in Western Kansas. He is adamantly pro life and supports a complete ban on abortions. My wife and I had to face a late term abortion in 1991. We both wanted a baby more than anything in the world. But in the 21st week, we were devastated to learn that the child that we wanted had a severe problem - the brain had failed to form. It would not live, or if it did, only for days. My wife's OB/GYN recommended termination. The condition is called "anencephaly". I wrote to Senator Marshall to ask him what he would tell a patient who presented to him with the identical condition. His response was that he is pro life and understands that others have the right to a different opinion....but....he DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

My wife's (physical) health was not endangered although her mental health was rocked by this devastating news. He would support laws similar to Texas and Missouri, which basically ban abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. But to show how 'open' they are to the "pro abortion" side - they cite exceptions. In the case of Texas - mothers life is endangered (it wasn't in our case), ectopic pregnancy (again, it wasn't in our case) or premature rupture of the amneotic membrane (again...not in our case). But our child was not viable. And didn't meet any of their exceptions. And if a woman in Texas presents with the exact same thing my wife and I faced, a doctor would not perform the abortion. In part since Texas legislators made it a criminal offense with a sentence of life in prison for doctors who performed an "unauthorized abortion". A doctor's livelihood is on the line and it's a risk that, while they might feel a procedure is necessary, cannot risk losing their freedom over it. I suggested to my Senator that maybe doctors are more qualified to determine if a procedure is right or wrong than a politician. And I suggested that, in cases like Texas, a doctor on trial for performing one should have a jury of OB/GYN's, since they are the only "peers" that they have.

I know....the left lobbied for "abortion right up to delivery", but many Republicans want to say that life begins at conception. That is also a pretty extreme view. But these idiots think that there are women who, in their ninth month, get pissed off at their boyfriend/husband and decide to abort the baby. My side has presented women who face a situation like the one my wife faced, but the other side has NEVER brought up a woman who decided to abort for the hell of it and was wracked with guilt afterwards. Not one.

I'm very sorry that you and your wife went through that.

I hope that you understand that your situation doesn't counter my position in any way? And that my position would fully support a termination in that situation?

 

[Emily Lake]

My emotional bias is that one such woman’s life is indeed worth more than that of a fetus.

I agree with you on this - one woman's life is worth more than that of a fetus.

What is your emotional bias when it's one women's convenience balanced against a healthy and viable fetus?

 

[Emily Lake]

Of the 28 women interviewed, they fell into two thematic groups: Those who gained new information in the third trimester, and those who faced barriers to obtaining an earlier termination.

I reviewed that whole thread and didn’t see a single case within their micro-sample of 28 cases, wherein a doctor just said okay fine, to killing a healthy, viable fetus.

Other than the ones where both the mother and the fetus were healthy and did, in actuality, obtain third trimester abortions?

Are you assuming that the fetuses must have been unhealthy or unviable, and the mothers just didn't bother to mention that at all, and only mentioned non-health-related reasons for their terminations?

It certainly doesn’t appear (to me) to justify legislative oversight of ALL pregnancies.

You keep mischaracterizing my position. Be more specific here, please - what exactly do you think I imagine would happen? What exactly do you think I want? How do you imagine the process would work within the guidelines I laid out?

 

[Emily Lake]

it should be illegal except in cases where it's medically justified due to the non-viability of the fetus, considerable malformation and abnormality of the fetus, or a materially higher risk to the health of the mother.

As determined by your congresscritter.
Got it.

No. The congress critters don’t consider each case. They just assume that all cases are unjustified and let the legal counsel of the hospital decide on a case by case basis to consider the balance of financial risk/criminal exposure between giving proper medical care and doing nothing.

Zackly. And that’s how we ended up here.
Thanks a heap. The the legal counsel of the hospital needs to weigh in before life-saving care can be granted to a woman.
But at least the aggregation of cells living off her body in a state that all of us have been in and none of us recalls, will be given fair hearing, even if both the person and the fetus die as a result.

Rewind things by a mere two and a half years.

Is this how things worked then? Did hospitals go consult their legal department before taking action when the mother's life was at stake?

 

[Jarhyn]

Jesus fuck talk about JAQing, it's been discussed myriad times that this is JUST like voter ID bullshit: to stand in the way of the one woman who is doing it out of convenience, you kill many women seeking it out of medical necessity as doctors and lawyers and politicians and bureaucracy point fingers at one another over her corpse.

 

[KCFlyer]

I hope that you understand that your situation doesn't counter my position in any way? And that my position would fully support a termination in that situation?

That wasn't directed at you...it was directed at pro life congressmen who, even if they were an OB/GYN had absolutely zero concern for women who need an abortion. This is a man who COULD have had patients like my wife and I asked him if he would have made the same decision my wife's OB/GYN made. HE did not answer. I think abortion is a medical issue, not a political issue and as such, if a doctor says a fetus is not viable - then a woman should be allowed to get one. Texas has their "exceptions". But when a woman is given news that is devastating - a doctor there will NOT perform an abortion because it's not one of the accepted "exceptions". And then they threaten a doctor with life in prison if they perform an "unauthorized" abortion. I've seen pro life groups here claim that a fetus with anencephaly IS viable, and they show a cute picture of a little baby in a cute little cap to hide it's deformed head. They also don't say how long the baby lived.

And my senator also wants to "defund Planned Parenthood". I spent 20 years of my work life working in public health, in part with Title X family planning, which is the "funding' that Planned Parenthood gets. NONE of that money can be used for abortion....it is used primarily for contraceptive services - preventing pregnancies. Planned Parenthood had PREVENTED thousands of abortions thru their Family Planning services. If you aren't pregnant, you can't get an abortion. So let's pull the money we spend to prevent pregnancy. Utterly stupid thinking. The right doesn't want to take a doctor's word for viability since "they will just claim the fetus wasn't viable so the hussy can get an abortion".

 

[Toni]

More and more politicians are climbing aboard the MAGA bandwagon. One legislator -- a Democrat no less -- has introduced a law called "the Life Begins at Erection Act" or some such, that would make male masturbation a crime punishable by $1000 fine, escalating to $10,000 for a 3rd offense. Masturbation for IVF or a sperm bank would be legal, as would wearing a condom during s**u*l i*t*r*ou*se. (I haven't read the law's details: Would wearing a condom while jacking off legalize that act?)

I don't know if that legislator was inspired by my own proposals, but he missed the whole point. For one thing he seems to have overlooked an important "family value" dear to the hearts of MAGA fans, both male and female: Misogyny.
And blaming the male for the problem of unfertilized ova which some Americans routinely flush down the toilet 12 times a year completely ignores human nature. Many or most of the masturbating males would be delighted to fertilize a living ovum baby, but are foiled by pettifogging "progressive" women who reserve their charms for Bible-deniers, black thugs with oversized apparatuses, antifa terrorists, vote stealers and other scum.

I still think the solution is a Life Begins at Ovulation Act that would punish some of these Marxist anti-family would-be succubi who commit 12 heinous attempted murders per year. (No, prosecutors needn't prove that the aborted ovum would have been fertilized for a charge of attempted murder, anymore than they need prove that a misfired bullet would have severed an important artery.)

Make America Great Again!

I think you are missing the point: The proposed law is ridiculous, on the face of it but it does adhere to logic by insisting that men take 100% of the responsibility fir what happens with their sperm and to keep it..,inside unless he ( and presumably she) consents to bringing any resulting pregnancy to term and fully supporting any resulting child.

Being all for equal rights, it seems fair to me that men bear equal responsibility…. except for the part where their lives, health, education, career and economic stability is at risk.

Y’all need to keep it zipped!

 

[Toni]

I'm no fan of elective abortion used as birth control method. I get really judgey about it.

Do you encounter a lot of instances of elective abortion?

How many is a lot?
I'm a gay man in a conservative place.

But if it helps you understand me better,
When I was around 20, my girlfriend and I got pregnant. We stressed and struggled together for about a month. We'd kinda decided on abortion. Then her period came back with a vengeance. She'd obviously miscarried, it was a problem she had her whole life. Over the next few weeks/months I couldn't help thinking about it. We were planning to kill our baby because they didn't fit in with our plans.
I flipped from solid RvW supporter, despite 12 years of Catholic school and conservative parents, to hard core anti-abortion.
Then, about a year after that, my younger sister got pregnant by her boyfriend. She wanted him, but not his baby. I drove her to the clinic myself, because I wanted someone who cared about her to be there, not just one of her ditzy friends.

Yeah, you might be surprised by how much experience an old faggot has with the subject.
Tom

I’m not trying to be cruel here but it is altogether possible that your girlfriend was not actually pregnant ( unless there was a positive pregnancy test?) and that she missed a period ( very common) and had a heavier flow on her next one ( very common).

If your girlfriend was indeed pregnant and had an early miscarriage, it had nothing to do with whether you contemplated an abortion. It almost certainly was due to fatal fetal abnormalities or some similar medical factor.

I’m not making light of your or her pain! I had an early miscarriage myself, in my case, a pregnancy I very much wanted ended about the time I began to suspect I might be pregnant. Although I know very well that I did nothing to cause it, it still was —and is—very sad.

I understand that the pregnancy scare was life altering for you and for her! I’m not making light of the pain or grief. I’m just trying to reassure you what you already know: it wasn’t your fault.

No matter how conservative an area where you live, I absolutely guarantee that there are people obtaining abortions in your town. I would say the same if you lived in a nunnery.

 

[Elixir]

Is this how things worked then?

Of course not. What was then LED TO what is now. A hard determinist would say it had to be.

Absent the determinism debate, I think there should have been federal laws laws enacted to prohibit restricting access to abortion or any other hc service, requiring 2/3 majorities of both houses to overturn. But of course we have SCOTUS, and they include panderers, idealism, willingness to lie, shallowness - and only a political miracle could possibly result in a climate that could even roll us back to days of yore. (You can't spell yore with out roe!)
Related imo:
The pro-birth people often belong to one of the religious minorities that "values life", loudly announces it and makes it a cornerstone of belief systems. a belief for rationalizing a stunning array of different behaviors that I find shocking. Especially since it is all non-biblical. Seems like the churches just want to increase their numbers.
I am a-religious, and have been forever. But life is like a diamond. Even a small improvement in grade can multiply its "value" its value bigly.
Peter Singer (?) spoke of the value, ultimately, of happiness. I think he even said that a happy cat has more value than an unhappy baby. Increasing the quantity of human lives does not result in overall proportional gains in happiness, well being or ecological soundness. Rather it leads to inequities, classism, fantastic economies, and a distribution of wealth from the top down. Oligarchy is probably the most benevolent outcome from promoting numbers of believers via mass reproduction.

.

 

[Emily Lake]

Is this how things worked then?

Of course not. What was then LED TO what is now. A hard determinist would say it had to be.

Disclaimer: It's friday night, and I am no longer sober. Please take that into consideration.

Absent the determinism debate, I think there should have been federal laws laws enacted to prohibit restricting access to abortion or any other hc service, requiring 2/3 majorities of both houses to overturn. But of course we have SCOTUS, and they include panderers, idealism, willingness to lie, shallowness - and only a political miracle could possibly result in a climate that could even roll us back to days of yore. (You can't spell yore with out roe!)

I agree that there should have been a law... but there wasn't. There was an interpretation based on privacy. And as much as I very strongly (I really can't express how strongly, there simply aren't words big or foul enough) disagree with RvW being rolled back... I also don't disagree with the reasoning for it. I very much WANT a law to secure the right to abortion. I just don't want it to be completely unlimited - because as much as you and I might wish that there were no unsavory people out there... they *do* exist. Humans are an incredibly opportunistic species, and without some social conventions and boundaries, we have demonstrated that we will do unconscionable things to each other. All I want is a minimal boundary condition.

Related imo:
The pro-birth people often belong to one of the religious minorities that "values life", loudly announces it and makes it a cornerstone of belief systems. a belief for rationalizing a stunning array of different behaviors that I find shocking. Especially since it is all non-biblical. Seems like the churches just want to increase their numbers.
I am a-religious, and have been forever. But life is like a diamond. Even a small improvement in grade can multiply its "value" its value bigly.

I've been an atheist since childhood, I was raised without belief in any higher power. Trust me, I get you on this one.

And I agree that life is like a diamond... but I include in the definition of life those who would survive outside the womb. I don't have a bright and clear line, but at some point it's not a fetus, it's a baby. We can argue about when exactly that happens... but I really struggle to believe that you think it doesn't happen until the baby is delivered. I don't think you believe that, in part, because you've shied away from any question regarding a fetus very close to full term. From that I infer that you *do* think that a few weeks, a month maybe, prior to delivery... it's a baby. And if it's a baby and it's health and the mother isn't in danger... then there are some very serious ethical and moral questions involved.

Peter Singer (?) spoke of the value, ultimately, of happiness. I think he even said that a happy cat has more value than an unhappy baby. Increasing the quantity of human lives does not result in overall proportional gains in happiness, well being or ecological soundness. Rather it leads to inequities, classism, fantastic economies, and a distribution of wealth from the top down. Oligarchy is probably the most benevolent outcome from promoting numbers of believers via mass reproduction.

.

I honestly don't know what this has to do with this discussion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Disclaimer: It's friday night, and I am no longer sober. Please take that into consideration.

Hey! Me too!!!

 

[Elixir]

Disclaimer: It's friday night, and I am no longer sober. Please take that into consideration.

Got a fair buzz on m'seff. Prolly best not to try to sort it all out in writing right now, f'yaknow what I mean.

 

[Swammerdami]

WTF is the "argument," if any, about??

Let me start with the latest:

You have taken the position that in certain circumstances the government may delay or deny a woman's healthcare.

I have not. I have, however, taken the position that in some circumstances it's not healthcare. I also hold the position that non-reconstructive nose jobs are not healthcare, that liposuction is not health care, and that lip filler is not healthcare.

Do you think "non-reconstructive nose jobs" are FORBIDDEN? Or just that they are not (or should not be) covered in some health plans?
Is that what this Roe-v-Wade sub-sub-debate is about? Whether very late abortions should be covered by insurance? Isn't there a thread about all the stupidities associated with U.S. healthcare financing? I thought this thread focused on what is LEGAL and what is ILLEGAL.

In my opinion abortion should be legal, without any consent other than the woman's,
* during the first six or seven months of pregnancy, or
* when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or
* when the fetus is unviable or the woman's health is at risk.
Are we all in agreement so far? During the Roe-v-Wade days, what percentage of abortions fell into one of these three categories? Am I wrong that it was 99% or so? Is the sub-sub-debate specifically about some minuscule fraction of abortions? (I don't mind debates about minutia, just want to know if that's what 's going on here.)

 

[Elixir]

Is the sub-sub-debate specifically about some minuscule fraction of abortions?

To me it’s s about leaving the door open a crack, for religious conservatives to force their way into the exam room. Which they now have done.
I don’t care as much about a fetus here and there, or even the poor rare exsanguinating woman who fell through the cracks under Roe.
I care very much that now, the word “exception” no longer refers to the abortion denied, but to the abortion obtained.
Everyone suffers. Except those perverted politicians, whose side-squeezes were never denied access.

 

[Jarhyn]

Is the sub-sub-debate specifically about some minuscule fraction of abortions?

To me it’s s about leaving the door open a crack, for religious conservatives to force their way into the exam room. Which they now have done.
I don’t care as much about a fetus here and there, or even the poor rare exsanguinating woman who fell through the cracks under Roe.
I care very much that now, the word “exception” no longer refers to the abortion denied, but to the abortion obtained.
Everyone suffers. Except those perverted politicians, whose side-squeezes were never denied access.

This is exactly it. And it's not even the "sub-debate", it's literally where the national debate is at.

Such 'people' want to find ANY excuse to bring in the weight and ponderousness of bureaucracy into the exam room so that it can delay or prevent urgent medical decisions from being made, because in that margin of difference, enough families have enough burden placed on them that they stay in poverty.

The point was always to use some miniscule fraction as leverage to cause a great deal of FUD that interferes with the majority enough to get their forced birth agenda passed.

While I doubt that this is really the goal of the rank and file, the rank and file make really useful idiots for ensuring sufficient births continue so as to allow treating humans like expendable resources in the economy in ways that further disempower the weak and empower the powerful. They don't see the forest for the trees, to use a metaphor, because they are sold on the lie that glasses will make their vision worse.

I'm not sure that the people arguing for such a crack in the door are availed of poor vision, however, given how clear it is that any manner of support for the anti-roe agenda pushed by current conservatives is to sign a contract with a devil or fairies. It reminds me of Castlevania Nocturne where the Abbott makes a deal with a demon to get an infernal machine that he intended to use to defeat the BBEG, and then he just ended up being her pawn using it to give BBEG an army rather than to send an army against them.

If you stand before the conservatives and ask for something you should know by now what you are going to get; Mephistopheles maybe the more honest negotiator between them and modern conservatives.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or for that matter, Hellraiser.

Who sees a box that eats and kills people and makes them disappear, with representatives like the cenobites, and says it's going to be a good idea to trust anything they promise to give you?

Like, these conservative fucks are out there arguing really dark bullshit, like marrying children to adults they cannot divorce such that if they escape they will be returned to their abuser. These are the same people, same families, who 60-100 years ago supported the Nazis, and who before launched the great depression and benefitted from it.

These are the people asking folks to oppose Roe. If that doesn't set off alarm bells I don't know what would. When it's the wealthy that offer what you want if you make them wealthier, you should know that the whole purpose of the story about Mephistopheles was a metaphor for this other stupid deal, where the only difference is that the person fucking you is entirely "real".

 

[Elixir]

Is the sub-sub-debate specifically about some minuscule fraction of abortions?

To me it’s s about leaving the door open a crack, for religious conservatives to force their way into the exam room. Which they now have done.
I don’t care as much about a fetus here and there, or even the poor rare exsanguinating woman who fell through the cracks under Roe.
I care very much that now, the word “exception” no longer refers to the abortion denied, but to the abortion obtained.
Everyone suffers. Except those perverted politicians, whose side-squeezes were never denied access.

This is exactly it. And it's not even the "sub-debate", it's literally where the national debate is at.

Such 'people' want to find ANY excuse to bring in the weight and ponderousness of bureaucracy into the exam room so that it can delay or prevent urgent medical decisions from being made, because in that margin of difference, enough families have enough burden placed on them that they stay in poverty.

The point was always to use some miniscule fraction as leverage to cause a great deal of FUD that interferes with the majority enough to get their forced birth agenda passed.

While I doubt that this is really the goal of the rank and file, the rank and file make really useful idiots for ensuring sufficient births continue so as to allow treating humans like expendable resources in the economy in ways that further disempower the weak and empower the powerful. They don't see the forest for the trees, to use a metaphor, because they are sold on the lie that glasses will make their vision worse.

I'm not sure that the people arguing for such a crack in the door are availed of poor vision, however, given how clear it is that any manner of support for the anti-roe agenda pushed by current conservatives is to sign a contract with a devil or fairies. It reminds me of Castlevania Nocturne where the Abbott makes a deal with a demon to get an infernal machine that he intended to use to defeat the BBEG, and then he just ended up being her pawn using it to give BBEG an army rather than to send an army against them.

If you stand before the conservatives and ask for something you should know by now what you are going to get; Mephistopheles maybe the more honest negotiator between them and modern conservatives.

That’s exactly the case I make, and am gobsmacked that these things are not self evident to anyone who has either lived more than a couple decades or has read the merest bit of history.

 

[Jarhyn]

Is the sub-sub-debate specifically about some minuscule fraction of abortions?

To me it’s s about leaving the door open a crack, for religious conservatives to force their way into the exam room. Which they now have done.
I don’t care as much about a fetus here and there, or even the poor rare exsanguinating woman who fell through the cracks under Roe.
I care very much that now, the word “exception” no longer refers to the abortion denied, but to the abortion obtained.
Everyone suffers. Except those perverted politicians, whose side-squeezes were never denied access.

This is exactly it. And it's not even the "sub-debate", it's literally where the national debate is at.

Such 'people' want to find ANY excuse to bring in the weight and ponderousness of bureaucracy into the exam room so that it can delay or prevent urgent medical decisions from being made, because in that margin of difference, enough families have enough burden placed on them that they stay in poverty.

The point was always to use some miniscule fraction as leverage to cause a great deal of FUD that interferes with the majority enough to get their forced birth agenda passed.

While I doubt that this is really the goal of the rank and file, the rank and file make really useful idiots for ensuring sufficient births continue so as to allow treating humans like expendable resources in the economy in ways that further disempower the weak and empower the powerful. They don't see the forest for the trees, to use a metaphor, because they are sold on the lie that glasses will make their vision worse.

I'm not sure that the people arguing for such a crack in the door are availed of poor vision, however, given how clear it is that any manner of support for the anti-roe agenda pushed by current conservatives is to sign a contract with a devil or fairies. It reminds me of Castlevania Nocturne where the Abbott makes a deal with a demon to get an infernal machine that he intended to use to defeat the BBEG, and then he just ended up being her pawn using it to give BBEG an army rather than to send an army against them.

If you stand before the conservatives and ask for something you should know by now what you are going to get; Mephistopheles maybe the more honest negotiator between them and modern conservatives.

That’s exactly the case I make, and am gobsmacked that these things are not self evident to anyone who has either lived more than a couple decades or has read the merest bit of history.

And every time we say this, and every time conservatives pretend it isn't true, I get that much closer to accepting the course any self respecting Belmont would take standing in front of Mephistopheles or their agent: "if it bleeds it dies".