Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jarhyn]

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).

And the incessant wheedling to declare such bullshit is fucking pointless since it's on a case by case basis ANYWAY. It's just so unbelievably stupid, and in such bad faith.

 

[Emily Lake]

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).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

 

[Elixir]

My apology Emily. Thanks for trying again.

the provider must document the diagnosis on medical records when providing the procedure.

"when", meaning before, during, or after? I believe you are describing a routine procedure there, if the answer is after.

Records may be subject to audit

By WHOM?

and doctors may be held liable

By Whom?

for failure to properly document appropriate medical diagnoses.

So someone decides ex-post-facto whether the doctor is in fact liable. That oughta keep the scoundrels in line.
Right now that would be their licensing board, and the penalty would be revocation.
What did you have in mind?

 

[Elixir]

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

Simple, expedient, lends to max happiness, min suffering. Well said.
Unfortunately our dear Emily seems to differ, and wants more "justification" than any licensing board can require.

 

[Jarhyn]

My apology Emily. Thanks for trying again.

the provider must document the diagnosis on medical records when providing the procedure.

"when", meaning before, during, or after? I believe you are describing a routine procedure there, if the answer is after.

Records may be subject to audit

By WHOM?

and doctors may be held liable

By Whom?

for failure to properly document appropriate medical diagnoses.

So someone decides ex-post-facto whether the doctor is in fact liable. That oughta keep the scoundrels in line.
Right now that would be their licensing board, and the penalty would be revocation.
What did you have in mind?

Something that would terrify doctors from aborting any fetus at all.

 

[TomC]

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

What Emily said was:
"The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.".
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

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

What Emily said was:
"The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.".
Tom

So brain worms are justified in killing and eating humans.

Better not kill those brain worms.

 

[TomC]

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

What Emily said was:
"The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.".
Tom

So brain worms are justified in killing and eating humans.

Better not kill those brain worms.

I have reason to believe that responding honestly to you is a bad idea, so I won't.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

You have repeatedly expressed your belief that there should be no CRIMINAL LEGAL restrictions of any kind whatsoever on abortion at any stage of gestation at all, ever.

You seem to forget the bold part all the time. Try harder Ems; you have yet to justify your case.
My belief, in simple terms is that

WE SHOULD DO THAT WHICH CAUSES THE LEAST HARM AND SUFFERING
to all concerned, including the fetus but not necessarily especially the fetus. If you disagree,
SHOW ME WRONG!
Don't complain about what horrible things I or someone else would do if my stance was allowed.

Having lived on the ragged edge of the medical community for decades, I've learned that the vast preponderance of medical professionals are good people who use decent science based judgment and human compassion when making "medical judgments" and try their best to recommend appropriate treatments. Even the ones I don't like. Ideally it falls to the patient, who has been diligently informed.

My position includes skepticism of your specious claim of rampant "optional" late term abortions of perfectly healthy fetuses posing no threat. The sentience of a 26 week fetus is very doubtful to me also, but that doesn't really bear on my position regarding what should be regulated by criminal statute.

 

[Elixir]

My apology Emily. Thanks for trying again.

the provider must document the diagnosis on medical records when providing the procedure.

"when", meaning before, during, or after? I believe you are describing a routine procedure there, if the answer is after.

Records may be subject to audit

By WHOM?

and doctors may be held liable

By Whom?

for failure to properly document appropriate medical diagnoses.

So someone decides ex-post-facto whether the doctor is in fact liable. That oughta keep the scoundrels in line.
Right now that would be their licensing board, and the penalty would be revocation.
What did you have in mind?

Something that would terrify doctors from aborting any fetus at all.

I guess that's it. Who would have guessed?

 

[Jarhyn]

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

What Emily said was:
"The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.".
Tom

So brain worms are justified in killing and eating humans.

Better not kill those brain worms.

I have reason to believe that responding honestly to you is a bad idea, so I won't.
Tom

I mean shit, brain worms evolved to eat humans, that means they must be justified by that logic.

Honestly?

Arguments from evolution are fallacious.

That's why Emily's argument is dead ass stupid.

I reiterate, if you wish to find what fucks I may give over your response, you can find them up your

 

[Elixir]

So brain worms are justified in killing and eating humans.

Better not kill those brain worms.

We are justified in killing the brain worms because they are eating our brains. Likewise, brainworms are justified in killing the worms that are eating their brains. And the teeny worms that are eating brainworm brains are justified in killing the even teenier worms eating their brains. And so on, all the way down to the atomic level. What you never want to do is kill something above you on the scale, because it might be your host. You want to make friends with your host while you eat their brains.

See
My Life as a Brainworm
by
Brian Worman

 

[ZiprHead]

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

The link does not say anything at all about restrictions. You are putting words into their mouths.

 

[bilby]

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... "

That depends on the situation. Every case is unique.

FTFY.

Don't try to put words in my mouth; You are very bad at it.

 

[bilby]

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.

FUCK you are bad at this. Jesus Fucking Wept.

IF you care what I think, then stick to claiming that I think the things I said.

IF you don't care what I think, speak for yourself, rather than trying to attribute to me things I do not think.

Try:

3) I actually do think there's a reasonable cut-off that should be generally honored (even if I'm not quite sure what that cut-off is), and because I am not sure, and am aware that nobody can ever be sure, I don't want a law to be made specifying a particular cut-off.

Of course, you can't say that, because you'd have to admit that I'm not the evil monster you've painted me to be. And that I am right.

This entire discussion boils down to you wanting a law (ideally one that's a close to being fair and reasonable as possible), while I (bilby, btw) and Elixir do NOT want ANY law, because no matter how close it gets to being reasonable, there will still be cases where women die because the law frightens doctors away from giving them the abortion they need in order to live.

I understand your hatred of freedom commitment to rule of law, but as I don't share your authoritarian bent, I don't agree with it at all.

 

[bilby]

Do you personally believe that it's reasonable to abort a healthy fetus when there's no known risk to the mother at all.

Such a situation cannot occur; There is always a risk to the mother.

And while her doctor might be able to make a sound professional assessment of whether that risk is outweighed by the risks inherent in the abortion, her congressman certainly is not. So having a law that overrides (or could override) the doctor's opinion is a BAD IDEA.

 

[bilby]

You have repeatedly expressed your belief that there should be no restrictions of any kind whatsoever on abortion

The missing word is LEGAL.

There should be no LEGAL restrictions of any kind whatsoever on abortion.

Indeed, more broadly, there should be as few LEGAL restrictions as practical on literally everything. Because that's the definition of freedom, and I like freedom (even if you don't).

 

[bilby]

if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

IF that unlikely situation were to arise, then it would be MORE reasonable to permit it, than it would be to risk the lives of the far larger number of women who, discovering to their dismay that their 35 week fetus is severely impaired, would be refused an abortion because doctors are unwilling to fall afoul of the law and of the rabid anti-abortion lobby who would doubtless harass any doctor who made such a medically necessary decision.

Nobody expects perfection.

Unless you do, in which case you are not being reasonable at all.

 

[Toni]

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).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

 

[Toni]

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.

FUCK you are bad at this. Jesus Fucking Wept.

IF you care what I think, then stick to claiming that I think the things I said.

IF you don't care what I think, speak for yourself, rather than trying to attribute to me things I do not think.

Try:

3) I actually do think there's a reasonable cut-off that should be generally honored (even if I'm not quite sure what that cut-off is), and because I am not sure, and am aware that nobody can ever be sure, I don't want a law to be made specifying a particular cut-off.

Of course, you can't say that, because you'd have to admit that I'm not the evil monster you've painted me to be. And that I am right.

This entire discussion boils down to you wanting a law (ideally one that's a close to being fair and reasonable as possible), while I (bilby, btw) and Elixir do NOT want ANY law, because no matter how close it gets to being reasonable, there will still be cases where women die because the law frightens doctors away from giving them the abortion they need in order to live.

I understand your hatred of freedom commitment to rule of law, but as I don't share your authoritarian bent, I don't agree with it at all.

Yes, some doctors refuse to perform abortions because they fear running afoul of the law or of someone who objects to abortions and decides to make their life unpleasant or worse.

But plenty of ob/gyns decline to perform non-emergency abortions or abortions under certain circumstances or past certain gestational age because of their own personal ethics of beliefs. And that is ok. It may be very inconvenient t but it certainly is wrong to force anyone to perform a abortion they object to performing just as it is wrong to force a woman to either carry or abort a pregnancy.

I think you are correct that the law has no business forbidding abortions. I do think k there is a legitimate role for govern to play in determining what facilities must be present to perform abortions at different stages.