Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

1) NOBODY is dying when BOTH the mother and child are perfectly healthy with no risks.

NOBODY is arguing otherwise.

When RvW was in place, how long were the waiting periods to get legal approval for late term abortions?

FINALLY!!! A relevant question. The answer is no secret.

“When Roe v. Wade was in place, waiting periods for abortions, including late-term procedures, varied by state but typically ranged from 24 to 72 hours. These waiting periods were part of informed consent laws that required patients to receive counseling or information about the procedure and fetal development before obtaining an abortion.
For late-term abortions specifically, additional legal and procedural barriers often applied, such as requiring multiple physicians’ approval or certifications that the abortion was necessary to protect the life or health of the patient.”

So, the answer to your question, in short form is at least 24-48 hours.
In case you were wondering, that is time enough for a woman to bleed out many times over.

Your turn Emily:
How many optional late term abortions were performed during that period?
How many women bled out while waiting that 24-48+ hours?

Here’s a starting point for you:

“Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, maternal mortality and risks related to unsafe or delayed abortions have increased in states with restrictive abortion laws. These states report a 62% higher maternal mortality rate compared to abortion-access states (28.8 vs. 17.8 per 100,000 births) due to limited access to care”
That’s a big increase, but you can work in reverse to see how many died pre-Dobbs.

Now you have the basic facts from which you can extrapolate the facts necessary to answer this question:

HOW MANY WOMEN SHOULD DIE BEFORE THEY EXCEED THE VALUE OF ONE FETUS?

 

[Elixir]

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?

That’s what you are advocating to remain curtailed to the 24-48 hours or more approval window, in cases of late term abortion.

Just as a thought exercise, do you imagine that nearly 100% of women determined to get an unneeded late term abortion would not seek illegal means when legal ones were denied? Who would bear moral responsibility for avoidable deaths incurred that way?

Here, I’ll give you an idea; POLITICIANS

 

[Emily Lake]

HOW MANY WOMEN SHOULD DIE BEFORE THEY EXCEED THE VALUE OF ONE FETUS?

No fetuses exceed the value of the mother’s life.

Your turn: how many viable near-term fetuses should die before they exceed the value of a healthy mother’s convenience?

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

That’s what you are advocating to remain curtailed to the 24-48 hours or more approval window, in cases of late term abortion.

Just as a thought exercise, do you imagine that nearly 100% of women determined to get an unneeded late term abortion would not seek illegal means when legal ones were denied? Who would bear moral responsibility for avoidable deaths incurred that way?

Here, I’ll give you an idea; POLITICIANS

“Oh tnoes, I’m not allowed to kill this healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me legally, I’m going to have to resort to illegal means to muder them! And it’s all YOUR fault that I have to do illegal things to kill them, YOUR FAULT!”

 

[Jarhyn]

As many fetuses should die for the mother's convenience such that no mother dies from doctor inaction.

 

[Elixir]

No fetuses exceed the value of the mother’s life.

Are you saying no number of fetuses exceed the value of one woman?
If no, what are you saying?
If yes, then the data I gave you above should make my dissatisfaction with RvW crystal clear - and apparently unarguable since you have just agreed with the priorities I have asserted all along.

Oh tnoes, I’m not allowed to kill this healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me legally

Are you building a house with all that straw?

Your turn: how many viable near-term fetuses should die before they exceed the value of a healthy mother’s convenience?

Zero. See how easy that is? If you are certain of the reasons for holding an opinion, straightforward answers are easy.

Those things happen and IMO they never should.
Now all you would need to do, to convert me and others to your cause, is present actual statistics supporting the idea that the restrictions in RvW never cost one single woman her life. (or served to normalize government interference in reproductive healthcare)

If a single woman’s life was lost due to restrictions included in RvW (and there were many, according to all the sources I have seen ) it would, by your own admission, exceed the value of all such fetuses combined.
But statistically you have not shown that the number of fetuses “murdered” that way even touches a tenth of the number of women killed by abortion laws under RvW.

I’d like to add one unsupported opinion that I hold, that is also subject to correction upon receipt of evidence:
I think that a doctor who would kill a viable fetus, is almost invariably driven by money. It would make sense if that is true, that civil fines would be a better deterrent than criminal law, which requires a much higher burden of proof. Don’t you agree?

 

[Elixir]

As many fetuses should die for the mother's convenience such that no mother dies from doctor inaction.

Though I basically agree, I don’t think that opinions about who or what “should” die under what circumstances according to discussion participants, lend to clarifying either the problems or possible solutions.

 

[Jarhyn]

As many fetuses should die for the mother's convenience such that no mother dies from doctor inaction.

Though I basically agree, I don’t think that opinions about who or what “should” die under what circumstances according to discussion participants, lend to clarifying either the problems or possible solutions.

Should in terms of the goals of the mothers to not die. The mothers should not die, ergo the fetuses must and should as must for this to happen.

Therefore as many should die as must for no mother to die from doctor inaction.

My earlier language was a bit obtuse and poetic, but no less valid for "should".

 

[Elixir]

My earlier language was a bit obtuse and poetic, but no less valid for "should".

Regardless … we SHOULD not have to be having this discussion because there SHOULD be never have been legal restrictions on reproductive healthcare in the first place.

 

[Jarhyn]

My earlier language was a bit obtuse and poetic, but no less valid for "should".

Regardless … we SHOULD not have to be having this discussion because there SHOULD be never have been legal restrictions on reproductive healthcare in the first place.

You are right, we should not.

 

[Shadowy Man]

“Oh tnoes, I’m not allowed to kill this healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me legally, I’m going to have to resort to illegal means to muder them! And it’s all YOUR fault that I have to do illegal things to kill them, YOUR FAULT!”

Don't some women die in childbirth? Doesn't that mean that there's always a risk right up to the moment of (and in some cases a short time after) birth? So, I'm not sure what you mean by "healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me".

 

[Toni]

I’m just going to insert into this discussion an explanation of what ‘elective’ means in medical parlance. It means a procedure that is performed in non-emergency situations.

I had 4 c-sections. They were ALL considered elective—described that way in my medical records but I honestly was not given another option. My first child was breach. Since it was my first child and I am a person with a very petite frame, the doctors in the practice I was seeing insisted that if the baby did not change positions by the time I went into labor, I ‘had’ to have a c-section. I absolutely DID consider refusing but when they started talking about potential brain damage: I agreed. Why didn’t I change doctors? Aside from the fact that the breach position was discovered on a Friday afternoon before I delivered at 1:00 am the following Monday, I paid the entire cost of prenatal care, labor and delivery and hospital care for myself and baby. Which exceeded 30% of our combined gross annual income. I could not afford to shell out another boatload of money assuming I’d find another doctor over the weekend to agree to let me try labor. There literally was no time to do that. By the way, one of my sister’s pregnancies about 13 years later was also breach. They turned the baby in utero while she was in labor, something she says she’d never, ever agree to again, it was that painful.25 years later she is still as adamant.

I searched long and hard to find a doctor who did VBACs. However that baby was extremely happy and not interested in moving into position at all. For 3 weeks, I walked around, feeling as though I was about to lay an egg—90% effaced, and 2 cm dialed and zero contractions or progress. I had another c-section, again, for the health and safety of the baby. At the time, no one did vaginal deliveries after2 c-sections: the other two were scheduled.

All of those were written up as ‘elective’ c-sections, although in every case, the physicians insisted it was necessary.

‘Elective’ abortions are those when the mother is not currently in such medical distress that an abortion is immediately necessary to save the life of the mother.

They are not performed because the pregnant woman wakes up one morning and decides, Nah, not feeling it.

 

[lostone]

I’m just going to insert into this discussion an explanation of what ‘elective’ means in medical parlance. It means a procedure that is performed in non-emergency situations.

I had 4 c-sections. They were ALL considered elective—described that way in my medical records but I honestly was not given another option. My first child was breach. Since it was my first child and I am a person with a very petite frame, the doctors in the practice I was seeing insisted that if the baby did not change positions by the time I went into labor, I ‘had’ to have a c-section. I absolutely DID consider refusing but when they started talking about potential brain damage: I agreed. Why didn’t I change doctors? Aside from the fact that the breach position was discovered on a Friday afternoon before I delivered at 1:00 am the following Monday, I paid the entire cost of prenatal care, labor and delivery and hospital care for myself and baby. Which exceeded 30% of our combined gross annual income. I could not afford to shell out another boatload of money assuming I’d find another doctor over the weekend to agree to let me try labor. There literally was no time to do that. By the way, one of my sister’s pregnancies about 13 years later was also breach. They turned the baby in utero while she was in labor, something she says she’d never, ever agree to again, it was that painful.25 years later she is still as adamant.

I searched long and hard to find a doctor who did VBACs. However that baby was extremely happy and not interested in moving into position at all. For 3 weeks, I walked around, feeling as though I was about to lay an egg—90% effaced, and 2 cm dialed and zero contractions or progress. I had another c-section, again, for the health and safety of the baby. At the time, no one did vaginal deliveries after2 c-sections: the other two were scheduled.

All of those were written up as ‘elective’ c-sections, although in every case, the physicians insisted it was necessary.

‘Elective’ abortions are those when the mother is not currently in such medical distress that an abortion is immediately necessary to save the life of the mother.

They are not performed because the pregnant woman wakes up one morning and decides, Nah, not feeling it.

IMO, women who carry fetuses long term rarely, if ever, suddenly decide to abort for trivial reasons, as Emily claims. That their doctors would concur is even more unlikely. .

 

[Elixir]

I'm not sure what you mean by "healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me".

No heightened risk. If that’s not what Emily meant I’m sure she will correct me.
For the sake of discussion anyhow.

IMO, women who carry fetuses long term rarely, if ever, suddenly decide to abort for trivial reasons

That is the crux of Emily’s complaint about my position. She seems to believe that it is frequent enough to justify a legal requirement that entails a 24-48+ waiting period for a late term abortion. That, regardless of the urgency or imminent threat posed by delaying treatment.
I believe the incidence to be lower - probably much lower - than the frequency of deaths caused by that mandatory delay.

I have little interest in pursuing it further for two reasons:

1) Emily won’t or cannot provide any statistics that support her position and
2) It is all academic, now that SCOTUS has unleashed all our Nanny States to rule over women’s bodies.

I guess it would still be an interesting discussion if Emily came up with data to support her position. I’m pretty sure though, that the reason she doesn’t, is because such data does not exist.
And, she has stated that no fetus is worth a woman’s life, which seems to contradict her original stance and obviate any point in arguing.
Tellingly, neither she nor B#20 seems interested in inserting the foundational question “do you think a fetus is a person”?

 

[Elixir]

Your turn: how many viable near-term fetuses should die before they exceed the value of a healthy mother’s convenience?

One last note - that’s the wrong question.
In both cases, the relevant question is how many people or fetuses actually DO die, and what is their relative value.

 

[lostone]

I'm not sure what you mean by "healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me".

No heightened risk. If that’s not what Emily meant I’m sure she will correct me.
For the sake of discussion anyhow.

IMO, women who carry fetuses long term rarely, if ever, suddenly decide to abort for trivial reasons

That is the crux of Emily’s complaint about my position. She seems to believe that it is frequent enough to justify a legal requirement that entails a 24-48+ waiting period for a late term abortion. That, regardless of the urgency or imminent threat posed by delaying treatment.
I believe the incidence to be lower - probably much lower - than the frequency of deaths caused by that mandatory delay.

I have little interest in pursuing it further for two reasons:

1) Emily won’t or cannot provide any statistics that support her position and
2) It is all academic, now that SCOTUS has unleashed all our Nanny States to rule over women’s bodies.

I guess it would still be an interesting discussion if Emily came up with data to support her position. I’m pretty sure though, that the reason she doesn’t, is because such data does not exist.
And, she has stated that no fetus is worth a woman’s life, which seems to contradict her original stance and obviate any point in arguing.
Tellingly, neither she nor B#20 seems interested in inserting the foundational question “do you think a fetus is a person”?

Emily has even suggested that some of these rare cases are done for the mere 'convenience' of the woman, on what is, more or less, just a whim. .

 

[Toni]

A late term abortion involves going through labor and delivery of a fetus that is dead. Not a fun time. There is no magic process to remove the fetus from the mother.

I am certain some women choose to have abortions for reasons I would consider ‘wrong.’ But then some people marry, divorce, change jobs, drop out of school, and have babies for reasons I think are trivial or wrong. That’s the thing by: not my life: not my choice.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh well, I gave you every chance. I'll just have to do without...

Sorry I overlooked that - NO. I do NOT consider a fetus a person.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Follow-up question: do you consider a preemie a person? For definiteness, let's say a newborn 30 weeks post-conception. Women have been giving birth at 7 months since forever, and their babies frequently survived even prior to modern medical care; nowadays they almost always survive.

We're talking about your condemnation of Emily over her wish to restore Roe-v-Wade.

"Wishing to restore" is misleading re my reasons for getting on Emily's case. I "wish to restore" it too, improvement that it would be.

Okay, make that your condemnation of Emily over her wish to only restore Roe-v-Wade.

I have observed that abortion laws writ large hurt people and benefit nobody but lawyers. I'd now like to add a relative handful of late term viable fetuses that are probably aborted annually,

To clarify, was that you stipulating that the relative handful of late term viable fetuses aborted annually qualify as somebody whom abortion laws benefit?

even though I believe that laws against it would increase rather than decrease their incidence.

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence for it? And to clarify, do you mean back in the days of Roe they did increase the incidence? Or do you mean if Congress enacted Roe they would increase the incidence because you expect states would react to New Roe differently from how they reacted to Old Roe?

Anyhow -
Late in the conversation Emily came around to agreeing that a federal ban on interfering with abortion availability or care would be ideal but unattainable (as if RvW was attainable) and that IMO was a fair observation. I'm sorry if that nuance was lost on you, and hope this cleared it up for the 100th time.

You appear to be the one nuance was lost on -- you're overlooking some context. I went back and found the original exchange, in posts #3827, #3832 and #3833. She was talking about the effects of RvW, because she assumed our experience with it is a guide to what the effects of having it in federal law would be. In your reply you said "I think there should have been federal laws enacted to prohibit restricting access to abortion". It looks like in your mind you were expanding the topic beyond the prohibitions of RvW to the prohibitions of your dreams, and it looks like Emily said she agreed with that because she hadn't picked up on your generalization and thought you were still talking about the more limited topic she'd been talking about.

your "but comport with religious edicts" add-on was just a baseless personal attack.

More an irrelevancy than a personal attack. I certainly didn't know if or what religious affiliation Emily claimed - I apologize.
You're correct - the fact that something is true doesn't make it worth saying.

That piece of reasoning was bad enough for Jehovah. Emily is an atheist. The problem with what you said isn't that it's true but not worth saying; the problem with it is it isn't true!!! Her position on this does not comport with any religious edict. You made that up. It can't "comport with religious edicts" unless there are religious edicts for it to comport with. There is no such religious edict. No religion in the world holds that abortion should be unrestricted in the first six months and may be restricted starting in the third trimester! You're apologizing for being rude, and that's great; but now you should apologize for misrepresenting her.

But you're NOT correct in accusing me unjustly persecuting poor Emily (who obviously has a good brain and doesn't need defending).

Everybody but El-ahrairah needs defending when facing a jury of elil. If she wants me to back off she can tell me herself; I'm hardly going to take the prosecutor's word for it that a defendant doesn't need a lawyer.

A baby born prematurely at 26 weeks goes into a neonatal ICU incubator, not into a garbage dump.

You know better. The decisions are not made on the basis of weeks.

Quibbler. They're made case-by-case based on survival prospects, and 26-week preemies have an 80% survival rate.

 

[Elixir]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Follow-up question: do you consider a preemie a person?

In virtually all cases yes. But I do not hold to the underlying assumption that person/not person is ever a clear line.

Do you consider a fetus a person?

The problem with what you said isn't that it's true but not worth saying; the problem with it is it isn't true!!!

Source citation please

No religion in the world holds that abortion should be unrestricted

Did I imply that some religion held that? No, you inferred it.
And so what. This isn’t about religion and my observation that political advocacy for restricting abortion has religious underpinnings is totally accurate, if irrelevant.

Quibbler. They're made case-by-case based on survival prospects, and 26-week preemies have an 80% survival rate.

That doesn’t mean every 26 wk preemie has an 80% chance. I don’t trust politicians to make timely calls on individual cases, and it’s individual people who die waiting.

Do you consider a fetus a person?
If not or not always, when would you confer personhood upon it?

This is always the root of these “quibbles” and about the third time I have asked.

 

[bilby]

The question of personhood is a red herring.

We allow persons to be lawfully killed all the time; It's not always murder to shoot dead an enemy soldier, or to administer a lethal injection in a death penalty jurisdiction, or to euthanase a terminally ill patient, to give just a few examples.

There's a lot of debate about whether and when these kinds of killings are lawful. The rules vary widely from one jurisdiction to another, and public opinion on the morality of such killing is more varied still.

It's notable that very little of this debate centres on the question of whether those being killed are, or are not, people.

Killing a person feels like it ought to be a universally and objectively immoral act; But it really isn't. Killing a person can be a very noble act indeed.

So the answer to the question "Is a fetus a person?" or even "is an infant a person?" is another question: "Why do you think that personhood is relevant?"