Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.

So are other humans.

For Papua New Guineans perhaps, but for the vast majority not so much.

Ya get them hungry enough and that majority, if it still exists, won’t be so vast.

We didn't *evolve* to eat other humans.

Not yet.

And once again, Emily says something quite reasonable and the folks who don't like it say something asinine.
Tom

Meh, I assumed that one was humor.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seriously - go back and review. I have no moral view about veganism. I think it's silly, given that we evolved to consume meat. There's no moral position in there... unless "this is silly" is something you consider to be a moral judgement. And I think that's really stretching the idea of morality there.

We didn't "evolve to eat meat" (as I have already pointed out), and the claim that we did is clearly a moral judgement (as is the claim that veganism is therefore "silly") - or perhaps it is an excuse for refusing to consider the morality of your position, which is itself a choice of moral position.

Sure sure. Cat's didn't evolve to eat meat, pandas didn't evolve to eat bamboo. It's all just moral judgements on their part, and anyone who disagrees that it's a cat's moral judgement to be an obligate carnivore is really making an excuse for refusing to consider the morality of the cat's position, and that's a moral position in and of itself.

Please be less absurd.

Animals didn’t evolve to do anything or for anything. That is a teleological position. Cats are obligate carnivores, which means they must eat meat, even if not exclusively, to survive. But they didn’t evolve “to do” that; that is just how they ended up by luck of the genetic lottery. Humans are in no way obligated to eat meat, and there is evidence that a vegan or vegetarian diet can not only be healthier for the person, but manifestly so for the environment as well. I don’t see why you find that silly.

Okay, this is a case where you're foisting an "ought" into my "is".

I didn't imply any guidance or objective in the process of evolution. Were I to do so, I would say "evolved in order to eat meat", which is not what I said. Eating meat is part and parcel of human evolution.

The remainder of the discussion of veganism should probably go to a different thread.

 

[Elixir]

It doesn't matter whether we think a reasonable doctor would perform the procedure; if the doctor is reasonable, the doctor will do the reasonable thing no matter what that happens to be from our probably-less-reasonable point of view

That's why we need third party Reasonables.
Just to make sure the doctor is being reasonable.
Sure, a lot of women will die awaiting reasonability decisions if there are criminal penalties for unreasonableness, but if we supply almost as many third party Reasonables as there are doctors, we can cut down the wait times to less than a day. I only wonder whose payroll all those third party Reasonables are going to be on.
Oh wait - I have an idea! Lets ELECT them! I mean, if enough people like them to elect them, they must be pretty reasonable, right? And since we ALREADY elected our legislators, let's let them have the job!

 

[Emily Lake]

At how many weeks of gestation do you think a reasonable doctor should refuse to perform an abortion in this situation?

When a reasonable doctor opines that it's a viable fetus, they will also reasonably refuse to perform an abortion.

Not if they hold the same opinion that you do. If they hold the same beliefs that you do, then the viability of the fetus is irrelevant - if it hasn't been born on its own, it's not a person, and it can be terminated at will. That's the view you have espoused. If they hold your view, they would NEVER refuse to perform an abortion.

 

[Elixir]

Eating meat is part and parcel of human evolution.

"Eating" (metabolizing) whatever it can is part and parcel of every organism's reproductive success formula.

If they hold the same beliefs that you do, then the viability of the fetus is irrelevant

Perhaps the viability of a fetus is irrelevant - in your fantasy of my opinion.
I would prefer to think you misspelled "indeterminate" again, but you just keep doing it...

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm going to step back a moment. Let's approach this from a different perspective.

@Toni , @Elixir , @bilby , @ZiprHead , @Jimmy Higgins and anyone else who would like to answer:

Let's assume a situation in which there is no known risk or deleterious condition in the fetus, and no known risks to the mother's health or life. For all intents, both the mother and the fetus are healthy.

Given that the normal length of a pregnancy in humans is 40 weeks...

At how many weeks of gestation do you think a reasonable doctor should refuse to perform an abortion in this situation?

That depends on the situation. Every case is unique.

Bilby's answer: "Even though we have thousands and thousands of years of experience behind us indicating what normal fetal development is and how long a pregnancy lasts, and whether or not a fetus is healthy, and we've got tons of medical technology that can monitor and determine the health of the mother and the fetus... well, we totally just can't ever know anything about anything, it's all just a weird mysterious process where there's this parasite and then sometimes there's some magic and it gets born, but if it's not yet born, there's totally no way to know anything because everything is totally unique and it's all a mystery... "

 

[Emily Lake]

From bibly's and elixir's responses, I'm left inferring one of two things:

1) You guys truly believe that it's perfectly fine for a doctor to abort a perfectly healthy fetus in a perfectly healthy mother right up until the hour before it's delivered, but you don't want to actually put that in writing because you're aware that it's a cold heartless baby-murdering view or...

2) You actually do think there's a reasonable cut-off that should be generally honored (even if you're not quite sure what that cut-off is), but you're too cowardly to say that because you've painted yourselves into a corner and you'd have to admit that I'm not the evil monster you've painted me to be.

 

[Emily Lake]

FYI - there's at least one clinic in the US that will perform abortions up to 35 weeks and 6 days of gestation with no restrictions at all.

Where Can I Get an Abortion? | U.S. Abortion Clinic Locator

Quickly search the largest directory of trusted abortion providers in the U.S. Updated weekly.

www.abortionfinder.org

There are two others that *might*, but you have to contact them to find out. One in NM and one in DC.

Where Can I Get an Abortion? | U.S. Abortion Clinic Locator

Quickly search the largest directory of trusted abortion providers in the U.S. Updated weekly.

www.abortionfinder.org

Again, I'll attempt to ask the question here: Do you personally believe that it's reasonable to abort a healthy fetus when there's no known risk to the mother at all... at four weeks and one day prior to the normal human gestation period?

Do you personally have any qualms or reservations about abortions being available with no medical reason that far into a pregnancy?

 

[pood]

Okay, this is a case where you're foisting an "ought" into my "is".

I didn't imply any guidance or objective in the process of evolution. Were I to do so, I would say "evolved in order to eat meat", which is not what I said. Eating meat is part and parcel of human evolution.

The remainder of the discussion of veganism should probably go to a different thread.

I don’t think I was actually foisting an “ought” into your “is,” but you’re right that this discussion should be in another thread. I’m mainly interested in why you find veganism “silly.”

 

[Elixir]

I'm going to step back a moment. Let's approach this from a different perspective.

@Toni , @Elixir , @bilby , @ZiprHead , @Jimmy Higgins and anyone else who would like to answer:
et's assume a situation in which there is no known risk or deleterious condition in the fetus, and no known risks to the mother's health or life. For all intents, both the mother and the fetus are healthy.

Given that the normal length of a pregnancy in humans is 40 weeks...

At how many weeks of gestation do you think a reasonable doctor should refuse to perform an abortion in this situation?

A reasonable doctor makes reasonable decisions based on the specifics of the situation. In that scenario, no decision by the doctor concerning a medical procedure should be prohibited by statute, IMO.

I'm going to attempt to parse your tap dancing.

Are you saying that in your personal opinion, when the mother and fetus are both healthy and there are no known risks to either of them, a reasonable doctor should not refuse to perform an abortion at any point in the pregnancy, right up until the 40th week?

I'm asking a pretty straightforward question, and I'm looking for a straightforward answer.

Fuck it, your answer turned out to be the least dodgy of the bunch, even though you still avoided providing as direct an answer as I was looking for.

Why don't YOU provide an answer to your own stupid question??
Could it be that you already know that identifying a universal date of "viability" would be STUPID?

You have once again indulged in imputing false opinions to others and covering it up with more senseless blather.
You can do better.
But it is obvious that you are determined to display your ignorance about evolution, biology, human physiology, psychology and politics, all in one thread.
You make up shit and tell others that they believe it.
ANYONE CAN DO THAT - WITNESS:
EMILY LAKE BELIEVES WOMEN SHOULD BLEED OUT AND DIE BEFORE ALLOWING AN ABORTION OF THEIR FETUS.

See how easy that is? An honest conversant would STATE their answer to the question they are demanding others address.
They could then presumable defend it.
But Emily can't do that. Almost as if she knows it is indefensible.

 

[Elixir]

Fuck it, your answer turned out to be the least dodgy of the bunch

Same answer you got from everyone else. Let the doctor decide.
WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER, EMILY?

At how many weeks...

WHAT IS THE MAGIC NUMBER? Emily????

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm going to step back a moment. Let's approach this from a different perspective.

@Toni , @Elixir , @bilby , @ZiprHead , @Jimmy Higgins and anyone else who would like to answer:
et's assume a situation in which there is no known risk or deleterious condition in the fetus, and no known risks to the mother's health or life. For all intents, both the mother and the fetus are healthy.

Given that the normal length of a pregnancy in humans is 40 weeks...

At how many weeks of gestation do you think a reasonable doctor should refuse to perform an abortion in this situation?

A reasonable doctor makes reasonable decisions based on the specifics of the situation. In that scenario, no decision by the doctor concerning a medical procedure should be prohibited by statute, IMO.

I'm going to attempt to parse your tap dancing.

Are you saying that in your personal opinion, when the mother and fetus are both healthy and there are no known risks to either of them, a reasonable doctor should not refuse to perform an abortion at any point in the pregnancy, right up until the 40th week?

I'm asking a pretty straightforward question, and I'm looking for a straightforward answer.

Fuck it, your answer turned out to be the least dodgy of the bunch, even though you still avoided providing as direct an answer as I was looking for.

Why don't YOU provide an answer to your own stupid question??

What you mean like the answer I've literally provided multiple time over and over consistently? I've been pretty consistent in saying I'm fine up to 26 to 27 weeks, but that beyond that I think a medical justification should be needed. I've said this several times.

Could it be that you already know that identifying a universal date of "viability" would be STUPID?

I haven't even tried to identify a universal date of viability. What I have done is to ballpark a stage at which viability is generally achieved - the stage at which a delivered premature baby is likely to survive with medical intervention - and then ADD TWO WEEKS TO THAT and use it as the baseline.

Generally speaking, if the fetus is healthy and developing normally, it would be considered viable with medical intervention at about 24 weeks. I am happy to provide some extra wiggle room to that and say that anything up to 26 weeks shouldn't have any restrictions at all. Realistically, you could probably even talk me up to 30 weeks, although I think that's really pushing it.

You have once again indulged in imputing false opinions to others and covering it up with more senseless blather.
You can do better.
But it is obvious that you are determined to display your ignorance about evolution, biology, human physiology, psychology and politics, all in one thread.
You make up shit and tell others that they believe it.
ANYONE CAN DO THAT - WITNESS:
EMILY LAKE BELIEVES WOMEN SHOULD BLEED OUT AND DIE BEFORE ALLOWING AN ABORTION OF THEIR FETUS.

Dude, you have almost literally said that about me already. So thanks for admitting that you make shit up, I guess?

See how easy that is? An honest conversant would STATE their answer to the question they are demanding others address.
They could then presumable defend it.
But Emily can't do that. Almost as it she knows it is indefensible.

This is ridiculous. I have given my answer repeatedly, clearly, and consistently. I've given it both concisely and verbosely, in simple statements and in lengthy posts containing all of my reasoning. I've given it over and over and over again.

So... stop making shit up?

 

[Emily Lake]

Fuck it, your answer turned out to be the least dodgy of the bunch

Same answer you got from everyone else. Let the doctor decide.
WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER, EMILY?

At how many weeks...

WHAT IS THE MAGIC NUMBER? Emily????

Clearly you're so upset that you've lost the ability to read.

 

[laughing dog]

The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.

So are other humans.

For Papua New Guineans perhaps, but for the vast majority not so much.

Ya get them hungry enough and that majority, if it still exists, won’t be so vast.

We didn't *evolve* to eat other humans.

Not yet.

And once again, Emily says something quite reasonable and the folks who don't like it say something asinine.
Tom

IMO, humor impairment is a larger source of irony than a lack of intelligence.

 

[Elixir]

I'm fine up to 26 to 27 weeks, but that beyond that I think a medical justification

Justification, or WHAT happens to WHOM?

Again, you fail to think it through. Which one? 26 or 27 weeks?
There's no magic number (as everyone has agreed),
You are simply recommending an extremely cumbersome, untimely, imprecise and dangerous process, whereby questions of legal satisfaction of the justification question precede the administration of care.
^This has been PROVEN to be true

It's difficult to refrain from belaboring the suffering and death experienced by adult people, due the uncertainty of legal ramifications inhibiting professional performance. It happens wherever such uncertainty exists.
I think far more preventable deaths occur under criminal abortion access-restricting laws than under their absence, and have presented statistics to support that assertion. Even if I agreed with the intent of the law - the results are what matter.

Please remind me... Why is the attending PhD MD OBGYN less capable of "justification" than someone else?

 

[Elixir]

Not if they hold the same opinion that you do.

That is a slanderous, unfounded personal assault of the exact type that you ritually embed in posts to people who have held your irrationality to account.
And incidentally, 100% FALSE.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm fine up to 26 to 27 weeks, but that beyond that I think a medical justification

Justification, or WHAT happens to WHOM?

For fuck's sake, Elixir, at least READ:

Abortion is available in the first two trimesters without limitations. Any abortion provider is expected to perform the procedure at the mother's discretion, with consideration for scheduling and workload. Abortions in the third trimester are limited to situations in which the mother's health or life are endangered, or in which the fetus is injured, damaged, or has a congenital condition that precludes thriving. In those cases, the provider must document the diagnosis on medical records when providing the procedure. Records may be subject to audit, and doctors may be held liable for failure to properly document appropriate medical diagnoses.

Again, you fail to think it through. Which one? 26 or 27 weeks?
There's no magic number (as everyone has agreed),
You are simply recommending an extremely cumbersome, untimely, imprecise and dangerous process, whereby questions of legal satisfaction of the justification question precede the administration of care.
^This has been PROVEN to be true

Proven to be true which is why hordes and hordes of women are dying all throughout Europe and Australia, which have STRICTER limits than I've proposed.

It's difficult to refrain from belaboring the suffering and death experienced by adult people, due the uncertainty of legal ramifications inhibiting professional performance. It happens wherever such uncertainty exists.
I think far more preventable deaths occur under criminal abortion access-restricting laws than under their absence, and have presented statistics to support that assertion. Even if I agreed with the intent of the law - the results are what matter.

Please remind me... Why is the attending PhD MD OBGYN less capable of "justification" than someone else?

Again, fucking read what I actually write, instead of making shit up in your own imagination!

Abortion is available in the first two trimesters without limitations. Any abortion provider is expected to perform the procedure at the mother's discretion, with consideration for scheduling and workload. Abortions in the third trimester are limited to situations in which the mother's health or life are endangered, or in which the fetus is injured, damaged, or has a congenital condition that precludes thriving. In those cases, the provider must document the diagnosis on medical records when providing the procedure. Records may be subject to audit, and doctors may be held liable for failure to properly document appropriate medical diagnoses.

 

[Toni]

The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.

So are other humans.

For Papua New Guineans perhaps, but for the vast majority not so much.

Ya get them hungry enough and that majority, if it still exists, won’t be so vast.

We didn't *evolve* to eat other humans.

Not yet.

And once again, Emily says something quite reasonable and the folks who don't like it say something asinine.
Tom

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

IMO, I can only speculate about what I would do as a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term or what I would do as a physician who was asked to perform an abortion under ( insert circumstance).

 

[Emily Lake]

Not if they hold the same opinion that you do.

That is a slanderous, unfounded personal assault of the exact type that you ritually embed in posts to people who have held your irrationality to account.
And incidentally, 100% FALSE.

What's false about it? You have repeatedly expressed your belief that there should be no restrictions of any kind whatsoever on abortion at any stage of gestation at all, ever. And you've repeatedly sidestepped and tapdanced around the question of what a reasonable time frame for abortions without medical justification might be, and have been pretty insistent that there should be NO LIMITS at all.

The closest you've come to even entertaining the notion that it's reasonable to have some guidelines is to just hand-wavingly assert that "oh, that would never happen, no doctor would do it" even when given evidence that some doctors ACTUALLY DO ACTUALLY DO IT.

But hey, I'm feeling marginally generous right now.

Will you please provide your beliefs and perspectives on this in clear unambiguous language?

 

[Toni]

Ok: A fetus is not a separate person until it is born and separate from the mother’s body,

In any pregnancy which is intended to be carried until term ( or as close as possible) any medical intervention or care plan for mother or fetus affects both and is designed and delivered with that fact in mind.

I'm going to restate this from my perspective. Please correct where I've gone wrong.

"If the mother decides at week 38 that she doesn't intend to carry to full term, then the fetus isn't a person at all and it's perfectly fine to terminate it. On the other hand, if the mother intends to carry to full term, but goes into premature labor at week 30, it's a person, and termination would be murder."

What happens if the mother doesn't intend to carry to term, but ends up going into premature labor at week 28, and the infant gets delivered via c-section? Is it a person, because it's been born and is separate from the mother's body... or is it not a person since she didn't *intend* to carry it to term?

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

At which point, CPS would definitely be involved to determine if it were safe to send baby home with mom or even allow mom in the same room as baby. Unfortunately pregnancy does sometimes cause serious mental health issues, including life threatening crisis

I may be misremembering but I think you do not have biological children? I’m only mentioning because you seem to be suffering under the delusion that pregnant women call the shots re: their care during pregnancy and labor and delivery

They don’t . At best, they get to state their wishes and plans and if things go according to plan and there is t some other reason-/different doctor. Lots of babies being born thst night, nurse with strong opinions that conflict with mother’s—everything might go to plan. Might. Doesn’t usually but it could happen

Reality is that women are given c-sections they don’t want, refused c-sections they do want, given episiotomies and meds they don’t want or are denied those things—depending on what the medical team things is best.

Not true, at least in some states. Oregon for example, which has basically no restrictions:

Oregon Health Authority

• Abortion is legal in Oregon.
• You do not need to be a resident of Oregon or a U.S. citizen to get abortion services in Oregon.
• Oregon has no restrictions on abortions based on how far along in pregnancy you are.
• There are also no required waiting periods before receiving an abortion.
• There are no restrictions on getting medication abortion pills by mail within Oregon.

While medical providers may refuse to give you abortion services based on their personal beliefs, they cannot interfere with your legal right to choose to have an abortion. If you are refused an abortion, please know there are providers who will help you obtain abortion services in Oregon. See here for where to get an abortion in Oregon.

You can ‘choose’ all you want but that choice is not a reality if no one and no medical facility will perform the procedure.

Toni, they literally provide a list of places that absolutely *will* provide abortions at any point in the pregnancy.

Seriously, you're clinging to this "no doctor would ever do that" belief, even when OHA is telling everyone where to go to do the thing you insist can't ever happen.

Look, you and Elixir and bilby and a few others have expressed your beliefs that abortions should be legal and available at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions - that's correct, isn't it?

If *you* hold that belief, what on earth makes you think that no doctors exist that hold that same belief? If a doctor holds the belief that abortions should be legal and available at any point with no restrictions... why do you think they would refuse to perform the procedure they truly believe should be an absolute unqualified right?

Yes, I read that they provide such a list but nothing that suggests that such a list actually exists or exists with any number of such providers greater than 0.