Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

What motivated you to compose such an idiotic comparison?

Drugs! It’s ALWAYS the drugs!!

Heh. Come to think of it, that explains a lot. You might want to think about tapering off a bit...

(It’s called reductio ad absurdum.)

Do you not understand how reductio ad absurdum works? It isn't enough to just claim your opponent's position leads to your absurd outcome. You actually have to show your work. How do you figure positing that a woman might rationally choose to abort late because the father left her and going through pregnancy, labor and parenthood all on her own is too difficult for her implies a woman might also rationally choose to abort late because an alien came to her in a dream?

Please stop misrepresenting other people.

Be specific; who have I misrepresented and how?

Seriously? Where to start? "irrational advocacies for laws that hurt people and benefit nobody, but comport with religious edicts", "is an invention of your less-than-honest mind" and "your intellectual bankruptcy is laid bare" all misrepresented Emily. 'By contorting “fetus” into “the party” you are trying to sneak an unsupported assumption that fetuses are people,' misrepresented me. "abort healthy fetus in the third trimester just for the hell of it" misrepresented women who find themselves in tragic personal situations that make carrying all the way to term untenable for them.

I represented that Emily’s position leaves/left the door open for exactly what we’ve seen happen.

You did, yes; and that was a legitimate argument, which I haven't criticized you for making. But if you're bringing that up again here in order to imply it's the only thing you represented about Emily, then you're misrepresenting yourself. You've said quite a lot about her.

Just recently she opined that “there should have been a federal ban” against restricting abortion access “but there wasn’t”. So I guess we are very much in agreement.

That's yet another misrepresentation of her position. I'm pretty sure she meant there should have been a federal ban against restricting abortion access prior to viability -- i.e., that Congress should have enacted RvW as a federal law when it had the chance. She can clarify if she wants.

Counter the argument instead of attacking some imagined “misrepresentation”.

Which argument, the one that Emily’s position leaves the door open for exactly what we’ve seen happen? Not interested. If you two want to debate that, have fun. I didn't ask to be shanghaied into the RvW thread -- I'm only concerned with the abortion debate in so far as it impacts the Dem Post Mortem. When left-wing Democrats misrepresent moderate Democrats for the sake of some perceived rhetorical advantage in the internecine struggle to control the party agenda, it makes them feel unwelcome in their own camp and more likely to stay home on election day.

 

[Elixir]

You actually have to show your work.

Not really. I just have to provide an example showing that the dynamic in question, if extended as a principle, can lead to absurdity. Maybe try some drugs

Which argument, the one that Emily’s position leaves the door open for exactly what we’ve seen happen? Not interested.

Ooookay.
Also not interested in answering the other questions I answered?
Is a fetus a person?

"irrational advocacies for laws that hurt people and benefit nobody, but comport with religious edicts", "is an invention of your less-than-honest mind"

What part is untrue?

That's yet another misrepresentation of her position. I'm pretty sure she meant there should have been a federal ban against restricting abortion access prior to viability

Good thing she has you to prevaricate on her behalf. Go back and read it. I said there should have been a federal law forbidding any restriction to abortion access. She conceded: “ there should have been but there wasn’t”.
I don’t know why neither of you seems willing to accept your own statements or answer your own questions.

Do you consider a fetus to be a “person”? At conception? Viability? Or birth (no longer a fetus)
What protection does it “deserve”, from what, and why? Is it “worth” more, less, or same as the mother?
I have answered all those questions for you, and I get no argument on those answers, just attacks for untimely clarification (upon demand, no less) and contorted “what if” garbage.
Your turn. Is a fetus a person?

 

[Bomb#20]

Also not interested in answering the other questions I answered?

Dude! What makes you think you're entitled to machine-gun me with posts and get instant replies to them all? I'm still plowing through a backlog of your posts from last week. Some of us work for a living.

 

[Elixir]

Also not interested in answering the other questions I answered?

Dude! What makes you think you're entitled to machine-gun me with posts and get instant replies to them all? I'm still plowing through a backlog of your posts from last week. Some of us work for a living.

Sorry, it was part of a post you did reply to. My bad.

 

[Emily Lake]

At what stage of development *exactly* does sentience occur?

Gee Emily, I don’t know. Do you remember being a fetus? I remember being in a crib - just a few fleeting images - when I was less than 2 yrs old. But not being a fetus. You?

I don't think sentience is the word you're looking for in your argument then. Sentience doesn't imply memory. Hell, I don't think I have any fleeting memories until probably about 3 or 4? And even those, I'm not sure they're real memories or if they're constructed from having heard the stories many times.

Sentience has to do with perception, awareness, and emotional response. I would argue that there's pretty decent support for late-stage fetuses being sentient, given that they respond to music, they react to their parents' strong emotions, etc.

That comment has some weight, but is the fetus more important than the already existing mother? Is its survival more important than that of the Mother, and her well-being?

I cannot explain how incredibly tired I am of this approach, and the fundamental lack of reading comprehension involved. Go look at my posts, there should be numerous ones with statements in bold, in highlights, in colors, all of which make my view on this exceedingly clear over and over and over.

So please, do me the basic common courtesy of actually responding to my position rather than a strawman.

Can we not trust doctors and the mothers to make that choice, in most cases? Bear in mind that this choices has few absolutes, and all choices are likely questionable, or would be, by some.

I will ask you the same question I asked Elixir, and to which I didn't get an answer:

If abortion is codified as a *right* up until actual birth... and the mother requests a late term abortion where both the mother and the fetus are healthy and there are no health risks on either side... then wouldn't the doctor that refuses to perform that termination be violating the mother's rights?

 

[Emily Lake]

Genuinely, what kind of NON-LEGAL restraints or limitations do you think could exist when you frame abortion at any time for any reason as a protected right?

Moral ethical and professional restraints. The kinds of things that even the tightest Nanny State cannot enforce.
If that doesn’t have any influence whatsoever, keeping the government out of the abortion regulation business is still the most humane option.

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly. We've seen cake bakers obligated to make cakes despite their moral and ethical obligations, wedding planners, all sorts of situations where people's ethical and moral disagreements are overridden - and that's for things that aren't even actually defined as rights.

 

[Emily Lake]

AFAIK, doctors do not provide abortions at or near term just because the mother wishes it. AFAIK, no such abortions ARE performed. Yes, there is a small number of late term abortions which are provided.

Evidence has repeatedly been provided in this thread demonstrating that they DO happen, just because the mother wishes it and YES they ARE performed.

They are rare, but they DO happen.

Look, as far as i can tell, your view is that they *shouldn't* happen. And you're assuming that because you think they *shouldn't* happen, then doctors *would never* actually do them. But that's wishes, Toni. They DO happen, they ARE performed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you believe that? Do you think if Texas passes a law saying Texas businesses don't have to provide handicapped parking spaces, it will be upheld? There isn't a word in the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment about parking, or handicapped people, or businesses. Do you think that means the justices won't find an anchor for federal supremacy? If you take that argument to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's office will send some underling to mutter something about the ADA being constitutional because handicapped people contribute to interstate commerce, and the SCOTUS will rule against you 8 to 1.

There's a real lack of understanding in this thread, that keeps baffling me. I'm no expert, by any means... but even I understand that federal laws are still federal unless the law itself is deemed unconstitutional. And passing a federal law specifically addressing abortion is something entirely different from interpreting an existing constitutional amendment to allow legislation-without-laws which is what left RvW vulnerable in the first place.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's yet another misrepresentation of her position. I'm pretty sure she meant there should have been a federal ban against restricting abortion access prior to viability -- i.e., that Congress should have enacted RvW as a federal law when it had the chance. She can clarify if she wants.

I am stuck in something that feels like double negatives, I think a word is missing somewhere in there.

For clarification: Congress should have enacted RvW as an actual federal law when it had the chance, rather then leaving it dependent on the interpretation of a few specific words within the 15th Am. Leaving it as an interpretation-in-action left it open to challenge in a way that a law would not have been.

 

[lostone]

At what stage of development *exactly* does sentience occur?

Gee Emily, I don’t know. Do you remember being a fetus? I remember being in a crib - just a few fleeting images - when I was less than 2 yrs old. But not being a fetus. You?

I don't think sentience is the word you're looking for in your argument then. Sentience doesn't imply memory. Hell, I don't think I have any fleeting memories until probably about 3 or 4? And even those, I'm not sure they're real memories or if they're constructed from having heard the stories many times.

Sentience has to do with perception, awareness, and emotional response. I would argue that there's pretty decent support for late-stage fetuses being sentient, given that they respond to music, they react to their parents' strong emotions, etc.

That comment has some weight, but is the fetus more important than the already existing mother? Is its survival more important than that of the Mother, and her well-being?

I cannot explain how incredibly tired I am of this approach, and the fundamental lack of reading comprehension involved. Go look at my posts, there should be numerous ones with statements in bold, in highlights, in colors, all of which make my view on this exceedingly clear over and over and over.

So please, do me the basic common courtesy of actually responding to my position rather than a strawman.

Can we not trust doctors and the mothers to make that choice, in most cases? Bear in mind that this choices has few absolutes, and all choices are likely questionable, or would be, by some.

I will ask you the same question I asked Elixir, and to which I didn't get an answer:

If abortion is codified as a *right* up until actual birth... and the mother requests a late term abortion where both the mother and the fetus are healthy and there are no health risks on either side... then wouldn't the doctor that refuses to perform that termination be violating the mother's rights?

I have not read everything you have written on this long, 190 page plus thread. I was only responding to my interpretation of what you said in that particular post. Would you deny later term abortions in all cases? Or would you tailor the laws to fit the circumstances? Or would you leave the laws open to whatever the woman and her doctor decided was appropriate, under the circumstances?

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly.

Who is "we"?
What constitutes "flying" in your opinion, and why should I accept your opinion?
What examples of "it not flying" can you offer, and who did it not flying, harm?

Something I can tell "is not flying", is our current situation which arose directly from not having federal statutory or Constitutional protections against interference with abortion access.

wouldn't the doctor that refuses to perform that termination be violating the mother's rights?

Sorry I missed that question. No.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't compel, and in fact would proscribe that doctor from taking such actions.
"First, do no harm"
Who do you imagine bringing a "rights" case to prosecute the doctor? The pregnant person?

Get real.

They are rare, but they DO happen.

Yeah. Probably even more rare than PEOPLE dying because of care denied or delayed. Sheesh.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have not read everything you have written on this long, 190 page plus thread. I was only responding to my interpretation of what you said in that particular post. Would you deny later term abortions in all cases? Or would you tailor the laws to fit the circumstances? Or would you leave the laws open to whatever the woman and her doctor decided was appropriate, under the circumstances?

I get not wanting to read the entire thread, that's totally understandable. But really... it was referenced in the post immediately above yours. I even colored the text red.

But here, for reference:

I disagree with this position. I take the view that at some point in gestation, it's no longer a fetus but a baby. And while I will 100% support termination late in the pregnancy if the mother's health is at risk in any fashion whatsoever, or if the infant is nonviable or has a severe defect, or otherwise is expected to not thrive. Thus, if there's any medically sound reason for termination, I don't think there should be any barriers at all. On the other hand, if the mother and the fetus are both healthy and there's no risks involved, I think somewhere in the third trimester, voluntary termination without medical necessity should be precluded. To me, at some point it stops being abortion of a non-sentient collection of cells, and becomes the killing of a baby. I allow that sometimes there are very good reasons to do so, but I don't think that it should always be allowable with no constraints.

I'm frustrated with this thread, and I recognize you've come in late and I'm shining my irritation on you. I've been through this a brazilian times now, and while you may not have intended to, you did exactly the same thing that Elixir (and others) has repeatedly done.

I will post: I think we should codify RvW guidelines. That means abortion is entirely voluntary with no barriers at all prior to viability. It also means that once viability is reached, abortions should be limited to medically appropriate situations where the mother's health is at risk, or where the fetus is damaged or severely compromised. If both the mother and the fetus are healthy and there are no risks to either, I don't think abortion should be allowed, because at some point in the pregnancy, it stops being a lump-of-cells called a fetus and becomes a baby.

The response invariably is: Oh so you think the mother should just bleed out in the parking lot or risk death in order to save the fetus?


So from where I'm standing, whether you intended it or not... you pretty much did the same thing. I've been clarifying over and over and over that if there's ANY risk to the mother, I 100% support termination. and your response of "but is the fetus more important than the already existing mother? Is its survival more important than that of the Mother, and her well-being?" seemed like just another case of ignoring what I've actually said in order to prop up a strawman.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly.

Who is "we"?
What constitutes "flying" in your opinion, and why should I accept your opinion?
What examples of "it not flying" can you offer, and who did it not flying, harm?

Something I can tell "is not flying", is our current situation which arose directly from not having federal statutory or Constitutional protections against interference with abortion access.

I find it supremely irritating when you snip my post to ask a question... and you cut out the piece that literally already answered that question:

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly. We've seen cake bakers obligated to make cakes despite their moral and ethical obligations, wedding planners, all sorts of situations where people's ethical and moral disagreements are overridden - and that's for things that aren't even actually defined as rights.​

wouldn't the doctor that refuses to perform that termination be violating the mother's rights?

Sorry I missed that question. No.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't compel, and in fact would proscribe that doctor from taking such actions.
"First, do no harm"

Is it your contention that doctors who have done the thing you say they shouldn't do are proscribed from doing the thing they've already done? Seriously, you've been given evidence of later term abortions being performed by actual doctors when there was no health risk to the mother, nor to the fetus. It *does* happen, so at least *some* doctors clear don't feel that the hippocratic oath is binding in this case.

Perhaps they simply hold the same view that you appear to hold - that personhood is magically conferred by the process of birth, and doesn't exist in any fashion while the baby is still inside the mother.

Who do you imagine bringing a "rights" case to prosecute the doctor? The pregnant person?

The *mother* who was denied a voluntary elective abortion late in her pregnancy, yes.

Just like the baker was sued for not making the cake their customer demanded, just like the court clerk was sued for not issuing a marriage license, just like canadian aestheticians were sued for not waxing Yaniv's balls on demand.

And all of those suits occurred for things that were not codified *rights* at all.

Get real.

They are rare, but they DO happen.

Yeah. Probably even more rare than PEOPLE dying because of care denied or delayed. Sheesh.

Once more, for the peanut gallery: Nothing I have proposed results in anyone dying because of care being denied or delayed. Nothing at all, because HEALTH RISKS is an explicitly identified reason to allow later abortions.

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly.

Who is "we"?
What constitutes "flying" in your opinion, and why should I accept your opinion?
What examples of "it not flying" can you offer, and who did it not flying, harm?

Something I can tell "is not flying", is our current situation which arose directly from not having federal statutory or Constitutional protections against interference with abortion access.

I find it supremely irritating when you snip my post to ask a question... and you cut out the piece that literally already answered that question:

^^
That’s a real beaut Emily. Rip on me for snooping, then proceed to snip away

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly. We've seen cake bakers obligated to make cakes despite their moral and ethical obligations, wedding planners, all sorts of situations where people's ethical and moral disagreements are overridden - and that's for things that aren't even actually defined as rights.​

Wut? Call me an imbecile but the equivalence here escapes me.

wouldn't the doctor that refuses to perform that termination be violating the mother's rights?

Sorry I missed that question. No.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't compel, and in fact would proscribe that doctor from taking such actions.
"First, do no harm"

Is it your contention that doctors who have done the thing you say they shouldn't do are proscribed from doing the thing they've already done? Seriously, you've been given evidence of later term abortions being performed by actual doctors when there was no health risk to the mother, nor to the fetus. It *does* happen, so at least *some* doctors clear don't feel that the hippocratic oath is binding in this case.

So what? They’re shitty people IMO. I think most would agree. Bring on the suit.
It’s not a criminal matter that needs resolution BEFORE a PERSON may be saved.

Perhaps they simply hold the same view that you appear to hold - that personhood is magically conferred by the process of birth, and doesn't exist in any fashion while the baby is still inside the mother.

Emily I find your rhetorical tactic less than straight. Any time you ask “is your contention/intention …” the answer is no.
Save your projection.

Who do you imagine bringing a "rights" case to prosecute the doctor? The pregnant person?

The *mother* who was denied a voluntary elective abortion late in her pregnancy, yes.

Once. That might be interesting! How do you think scotus would rule? Make the Doctor perform the abortion?

The countersuit would win BIGLY tho. $$$

Just like the baker was sued for not making the cake their customer demanded, just like the court clerk was sued for not issuing a marriage license, just like canadian aestheticians were sued for not waxing Yaniv's balls on demand.

And all of those suits occurred for things that were not codified *rights* at all.

And? There’s no equivalence there.

Get real.

They are rare, but they DO happen.

Yeah. Probably even more rare than PEOPLE dying because of care denied or delayed. Sheesh.

Once more, for the peanut gallery: Nothing I have proposed results in anyone dying because of care being denied or delayed. Nothing at all, because HEALTH RISKS is an explicitly identified reason to allow later abortions.

Once again for Emily, my complaint is that someone has to do the allowing. You prefer politicians. People bleed out waiting for their allowance.
Not rocket science afaics.
ABORTION LAWS KILL PEOPLE

Do you believe fetuses are people?
Presumably you imagine some ”point” of abrupt transition from not a person to person. What test would you administer as a doctor, and how long would it take?

PS I tried not to leave anything out, salient or not. It makes the post look like shit and hard to read IMO, but I’m happy to cater to your whim.

 

[Elixir]

Just like the baker was sued for not making the cake their customer demanded, just like the court clerk was sued for not issuing a marriage license, just like canadian aestheticians were sued for not waxing Yaniv's balls on demand.

That's a great example of why your posts earn my contempt.
Please do let me know though, when you find a significant sized cult that forbids carrying late term fetuses to term.

 

[lostone]

What if the issue was settled by a late term abortion arbitration panel, that met quickly, came to a quick decision, and judged the morality of the issue, on a case by case basis?

 

[bilby]

What if the issue was settled by a late term abortion arbitration panel, that met quickly, came to a quick decision, and judged the morality of the issue, on a case by case basis?

What if the issue was settled without asking a bunch of busy bodies who have no reason to be asked for their opinions?

Who could possibly have a just reason to be included on such a panel?

How would you select such a panel, without it being stacked by enthusiastic religious nutters keen to impose their unreason on the world?

The only such "panel" that could be relied upon to mert quickly, and to have a non-insanity based interest in the most moral outcome, is the panel that already exists, consisting of the pregnant woman herself, and the doctor she has selected to assist her with medical matters.

What other party has any business in the decision making process at all, and why?

 

[lostone]

What if the issue was settled by a late term abortion arbitration panel, that met quickly, came to a quick decision, and judged the morality of the issue, on a case by case basis?

What if the issue was settled without asking a bunch of busy bodies who have no reason to be asked for their opinions?

Who could possibly have a just reason to be included on such a panel?

How would you select such a panel, without it being stacked by enthusiastic religious nutters keen to impose their unreason on the world?

The only such "panel" that could be relied upon to mert quickly, and to have a non-insanity based interest in the most moral outcome, is the panel that already exists, consisting of the pregnant woman herself, and the doctor she has selected to assist her with medical matters.

What other party has any business in the decision making process at all, and why?

OK, I concede that it was a bad idea - I was trying to counter to address Emily's misgivings

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly.

Who is "we"?
What constitutes "flying" in your opinion, and why should I accept your opinion?
What examples of "it not flying" can you offer, and who did it not flying, harm?

Something I can tell "is not flying", is our current situation which arose directly from not having federal statutory or Constitutional protections against interference with abortion access.

I find it supremely irritating when you snip my post to ask a question... and you cut out the piece that literally already answered that question:

^^
That’s a real beaut Emily. Rip on me for snooping, then proceed to snip away

Yeah, we've repeatedly seen that this won't fly. We've seen cake bakers obligated to make cakes despite their moral and ethical obligations, wedding planners, all sorts of situations where people's ethical and moral disagreements are overridden - and that's for things that aren't even actually defined as rights.​

Wut? Call me an imbecile but the equivalence here escapes me.

wouldn't the doctor that refuses to perform that termination be violating the mother's rights?

Sorry I missed that question. No.
The Hippocratic oath doesn't compel, and in fact would proscribe that doctor from taking such actions.
"First, do no harm"

Is it your contention that doctors who have done the thing you say they shouldn't do are proscribed from doing the thing they've already done? Seriously, you've been given evidence of later term abortions being performed by actual doctors when there was no health risk to the mother, nor to the fetus. It *does* happen, so at least *some* doctors clear don't feel that the hippocratic oath is binding in this case.

So what? They’re shitty people IMO. I think most would agree. Bring on the suit.
It’s not a criminal matter that needs resolution BEFORE a PERSON may be saved.

Perhaps they simply hold the same view that you appear to hold - that personhood is magically conferred by the process of birth, and doesn't exist in any fashion while the baby is still inside the mother.

Emily I find your rhetorical tactic less than straight. Any time you ask “is your contention/intention …” the answer is no.
Save your projection.

Who do you imagine bringing a "rights" case to prosecute the doctor? The pregnant person?

The *mother* who was denied a voluntary elective abortion late in her pregnancy, yes.

Once. That might be interesting! How do you think scotus would rule? Make the Doctor perform the abortion?

The countersuit would win BIGLY tho. $$$

Just like the baker was sued for not making the cake their customer demanded, just like the court clerk was sued for not issuing a marriage license, just like canadian aestheticians were sued for not waxing Yaniv's balls on demand.

And all of those suits occurred for things that were not codified *rights* at all.

And? There’s no equivalence there.

Get real.

They are rare, but they DO happen.

Yeah. Probably even more rare than PEOPLE dying because of care denied or delayed. Sheesh.

Once more, for the peanut gallery: Nothing I have proposed results in anyone dying because of care being denied or delayed. Nothing at all, because HEALTH RISKS is an explicitly identified reason to allow later abortions.

Once again for Emily, my complaint is that someone has to do the allowing. You prefer politicians. People bleed out waiting for their allowance.
Not rocket science afaics.
ABORTION LAWS KILL PEOPLE

Do you believe fetuses are people?
Presumably you imagine some ”point” of abrupt transition from not a person to person. What test would you administer as a doctor, and how long would it take?

PS I tried not to leave anything out, salient or not. It makes the post look like shit and hard to read IMO, but I’m happy to cater to your whim.

I’m on my phone, so I’m not going to bother trying to edit to make this easier to read.

I’m just going to focus on two things here.

1) NOBODY is dying when BOTH the mother and child are perfectly healthy with no risks. You insist on substituting your motte for my Bailey. You repeatedly change the scenario to one where the mother might die without an abortion to save her life, despite this being a situation I’ve addressed so many times that I no longer believe you’re misunderstanding me.

2) When RvW was in place, how long were the waiting periods to get legal approval for late term abortions? How many women died under RvW waiting for lawyers to go through the rigorous approval process?

 

[Emily Lake]

What if the issue was settled by a late term abortion arbitration panel, that met quickly, came to a quick decision, and judged the morality of the issue, on a case by case basis?

Or, you know, a doctor making a determination of whether or not it’s medically necessary and listing the appropriate diagnoses in their records… like they do with any other medical procedure?

Morality doesn’t even need to come into it, there doesn’t need to be a panel to debate it. It’s no more onerous than any other non-cosmetic procedure that doctors do.