Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

Medically indicated in this context means that the mother's life or health are identifiably at risk if the pregnancy is continued, or that the fetus has a condition that either materially increases the likelihood of fetal death prior to full term or is unlikely to thrive once delivered.

Oh. Judgment calls.
You recently deferred- or seemed to defer -to the judgment of (2) medical professionals rather than lawyers or politicians.
I consider that a giant leap forward. Are you going back on it?

 

[Emily Lake]

There are a whole lot of regulations out there that provide the guidelines within which something may be done, but don't actually directly interfere with the doing of those things.

Abortion is not one of those “things”.

But it should be.

Agreed.
And everyone SHOULD have a pony.
But reality doesn’t permit. Even given a surplus of ponies, trying to put 8 million of them into NYC isn’t a good idea.

Ponies are irrelevant and a massive red herring.

My position is that many regulations provide guidelines but don't directly interfere with the activity being regulated, and that abortion should be one of those things.

You agree with that.

Then you effectively say "but we can't make it absolutely perfect all the time in every single circumstance, so we shouldn't regulate it at all" which is absurd.

 

[Emily Lake]

Medically indicated in this context means that the mother's life or health are identifiably at risk if the pregnancy is continued, or that the fetus has a condition that either materially increases the likelihood of fetal death prior to full term or is unlikely to thrive once delivered.

Oh. Judgment calls.
You recently deferred- or seemed to defer -to the judgment of (2) medical professionals rather than lawyers or politicians.
I consider that a giant leap forward. Are you going back on it?

Dude, your reading comprehension is the problem here. At no point whatsoever have I suggested or even implied that the judgement on whether a late term abortion is medically appropriate be provided by lawyers or judges - that is 100% your own invention, pulled out of your ass.

The giant leap forward here is that you're FINALLY actually reading and using your thinky-brain instead of your emotional triggers and pent up outrage.

 

[Elixir]

Ponies are irrelevant and a massive red herring

Your inability to see the relevance goes hand in hand with your inability to see the harm wrought by abortion laws

My position is that many regulations provide guidelines but don't directly interfere with the activity being regulated, and that abortion should be one of those things.

Good for you and your position.
My position is that abortion laws are not among those that “don't directly interfere with the activity being regulated”, and I have (unlike yourself) provided real world data to support my position.

your reading comprehension is the problem

That seems to be the most consistent element of your “position”.

 

[Emily Lake]

My position is that abortion laws are not among those that “don't directly interfere with the activity being regulated

Why do you think this is the case? Why do you think that what I proposed interferes with the activity? What specifically in my proposal interferes directly?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

I'm curious how this will stop a pair of doctors from wink wink, nudge nudge and terminate perfectly healthy fetus's at the very last moment. Also, who is the holder of the signed document of the two doctors?

It doesn't guarantee that wink-wink-nudge-nudge is impossible, but it does reduce the likelihood to a reasonable degree. Holder of the document is... wait for it... medical records!

It was a serious question. Why the attitude?

Your "wink wink nudge nudge" sounds both unserious and baiting, so... why the attitude from you?

You are saying doctors are performing very late abortions on health fetuses with healthy mothers. How is a piece of paperwork could to impede them. If the doctors agree to sign off together, how have you improved anything?

Shocking, I know, that doctors keep documentation for their procedures and interactions in their records. Whodathunkit?

So, your position is that this piece of paper is going to stop people from performing acts you feel are unethical? If it is kept in the medical records, why is there a need for a second doctor's signature? Isn't that increasing liability of the medical profession?

Yes, my position is that when documentation is required it reduces the opportunity for unethical behavior, and requiring a second party's agreement on the documentation reduces it even further.

But you are making the claim the doctors are unethical. If unethical doctors are performing unethical procedures, one piece of paper is going to stop them?

This isn't a novel concept. It's why we require financial record keeping, documentation of prescriptions dispensed, stock intake records and inventory balanced against itemized sales, and any number of other instances where we require a "piece of paper" as proof that the regulations are followed.

And hey, it turns out that when you make more than one person accountable for adhering to regulations, it actually does reduce the likelihood of unethical behavior. It's unlikely that two independent actors would both behave unethically unless they're conspiring to do so... and most people don't do that.

But you've tied up another doctor as being held liable for a procedure performed by another doctor. You are limiting women that need a procedure performed because the number of doctors that'll add their name to be liable will be reduced.

You are effectively negatively impacting women that we know need a procedure performed to protect against a bare minority of other women that are arbitrarily getting a procedure performed very late in pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it is an unsupported untruth.

Bullshit. THAT is an unsupported falsehood.

* Emily supports retention of laws that benefit nobody, and serve as excuse for harming women: late term abortions.

Bullshit. Emily supports unfettered abortions for the first two trimesters, and medically justified abortions for the last trimester. Which is ALSO the view held by the vast majority of women in the US.

Please stop misrepresenting my views. IT's becoming a bit of a campaign for you, and I'm quite tired of it.

The problem is you seem to be supporting any and all roadblocks towards those medically justified third trimester abortions. You're trying to fix a problem that did not exist. You are also holding an inconsistent position in that you presented a definition of medically justified far more liberal than actual medical practice, yet you want to impose restrictions. See why we don't believe you?

 

[Elixir]

Looking around IIDB...

That's a very compelling statistic, Ems.

It's unlikely that two independent actors would both behave unethically unless they're conspiring to do so... and most people don't do that.

Oh but it DOES happen! With over 45,000 OB/GYNs, don't you think there are two crooked ones, and that they might seek each other out to kill babies?
Like I pointed out, if the incidence of corruption among those 45,000 is 1%, the chance of getting two corrupt ones at random is still 1:10,000 even if they didn't attract each other. With an estimated number of third trimester abortion estimated at around 100,000/yr, that means
TEN BABIES PER YEAR WOULD BE MURDERED BY PAIRS OF CORRUPT OB/GYNs!!!

Ok seriously - "unlikely" has never been your touchstone for permissibility or you never would have advocated for legal prohibitions of unlikely things in the first place. Is there some threshold of unlikelihood that represents your magic number?

 

[laughing dog]

If I understand Emily's position, she wishes to minimize "convenience abortions" (a terrible term, but shorthand for abortions that have no basis in health or health risk to anyone) in the last portion of the trimester. In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage. Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a canard that just keeps coming back over and over -- either the woman is seeking an abortion because it's medically indicated, or else she's seeking one just for the hell of it because she doesn't want it any more and couldn't be bothered to make up her mind in the first 6 or 7 months. It's a false dilemma fallacy, it's insulting as hell to women, and it is bloody condescending to the entire social class who lack our advantages. So to everyone who ever presented those dilemma horns, check your goddamn privilege.

There are at least three painfully obvious reasons a healthy woman might quite rationally seek to abort a healthy fetus late-term. (1) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, she lost her medical insurance. (2) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, the baby's father walked out on her, or went to prison, or died. (3) Seven months into a much-unwanted pregnancy, she was finally able to lay her hands on enough money to pay for an abortion and/or for travel to a state where it's still legal.

4) Seven months into a pregnancy she didn't want she managed to escape her abuser.

But all such cases are very rare and there's no indication that there are actual abortions from them. We have one paper listed--but in reading it it doesn't feel remotely like a normal research paper. And it used an inherently unverifiable data set.

 

[Emily Lake]

But you are making the claim the doctors are unethical. If unethical doctors are performing unethical procedures, one piece of paper is going to stop them?

This needs some clarity.

In my personal view, and the view of the majority of people in the US, and the majority of people on the planet, it is inappropriate to perform a late-term abortion when there's no medical need to do so.

There is not a specific medical ethics guideline on the topic. That means that there is no standing to say it is or is not ethical other than personal belief. The result of this is that if a doctor believes it's ethical and there is no codified guideline on the topic, then it cannot be challenged on ethical grounds.

Now contrast that with a regulation that has clear guidance on the topic. This regulation then overrides the personal beliefs of the doctor. It produces a situation in which even if the doctor personally believes abortions should be available on demand at any point in gestation with no restrictions, they cannot act on that belief without making themselves liable.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's think about this from a different angle: euthanasia. It's legal to euthanize a healthy pet. Most vets will refuse to do so based on their personal beliefs and views but some will still perform the procedure. If you happen to believe, as I do, that it is unacceptable to euthanize a healthy pet without extremely good reason, then I would expect you to take umbrage with those very very few vets who perform such procedures. Were there a regulation that prohibited veterinarians from euthanizing healthy pets, then those few vets are extremely unlikely to perform any terminations of health pets - specifically because a regulation exists that limits their personal beliefs.

This doesn't guarantee that no vet will ever euthanize a healthy pet - it could still happen. But it 1) reduces the likelihood and 2) provides a means of redress for violation.

 

[Elixir]

If I understand Emily's position, she wishes to minimize "convenience abortions" (a terrible term, but shorthand for abortions that have no basis in health or health risk to anyone) in the last portion of the trimester. In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage. Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

When one party can itemize costs and the other cannot, it is rational to defer to the party with the facts.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I understand Emily's position, she wishes to minimize "convenience abortions" (a terrible term, but shorthand for abortions that have no basis in health or health risk to anyone) in the last portion of the trimester. In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage. Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

When one party can itemize costs and the other cannot, it is rational to defer to the party with the facts.

Well, except when they always knew they lacked facts and didn't want anything pesky like that to stop them because they just know they are right, to the same extent as a flat earther.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem is you seem to be supporting any and all roadblocks towards those medically justified third trimester abortions.

Yes, clearly, I'm supporting roadblocks for medically justified third trimester abortions by... explicitly and unambiguously allowing medically justified third trimester abortions. Makes total sense.

You're trying to fix a problem that did not exist. You are also holding an inconsistent position in that you presented a definition of medically justified far more liberal than actual medical practice, yet you want to impose restrictions. See why we don't believe you?

This is false. I present a definition a definition of medically justified that is perfectly consistent with medical practice everywhere that isn't Texas (or those other states with total bans). In every not-insane part of the US, if the mother's life or health is at risk, it is actual medical practice to terminate the fetus (caveat for cases where the mother refuses). In every not-insane part of the US, if the fetus is not viable or has a condition that will prevent it from thriving, most doctors would think it appropriate to terminate.

The restriction I propose is specifically around situations that are not medically justified.

I don't know what exactly you don't "believe", as belief should have nothing to do with this. I will say that most of the opposition is based on blatant and seemingly intentional misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.

 

[Elixir]

'm supporting roadblocks for medically justified third trimester abortions by... explicitly and unambiguously allowing medically justified third trimester abortions.

... and specifying the source of justifications.
Prayza load, now it's two doctors instead of a legislature.

 

[Jarhyn]

'm supporting roadblocks for medically justified third trimester abortions by... explicitly and unambiguously allowing medically justified third trimester abortions.

... and specifying the source of justifications.
Prayza load, now it's two doctors instead of a legislature.

Which really makes you wonder why all this time she has been promoting conservatives and not condemning them roundly, since that's WAY more than 2 doctors worth of decision-makers involved.

 

[Emily Lake]

Looking around IIDB...

That's a very compelling statistic, Ems.

It's unlikely that two independent actors would both behave unethically unless they're conspiring to do so... and most people don't do that.

Oh but it DOES happen! With over 45,000 OB/GYNs, don't you think there are two crooked ones, and that they might seek each other out to kill babies?
Like I pointed out, if the incidence of corruption among those 45,000 is 1%, the chance of getting two corrupt ones at random is still 1:10,000 even if they didn't attract each other. With an estimated number of third trimester abortion estimated at around 100,000/yr, that means
TEN BABIES PER YEAR WOULD BE MURDERED BY PAIRS OF CORRUPT OB/GYNs!!!

Ok seriously - "unlikely" has never been your touchstone for permissibility or you never would have advocated for legal prohibitions of unlikely things in the first place. Is there some threshold of unlikelihood that represents your magic number?

I'll give this another shot, but I'm getting really close to just assuming you're incapable of reason.

Let's start with the last bit, and I'll ignore your personal jab. We all advocate for legal prohibitions of unlikely things all the time. The vast majority of things that are crimes are unlikely things. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would commit patricide... but we still have legal prohibitions against it. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would engage in bestiality, but we still have legal prohibitions against it. It's extremely unlikely that any parent would feed their toddler pot gummies, but we still have legal prohibitions against it.

If your general position across the board is that we shouldn't have laws against things that only happen rarely... well, that's an entirely different discussion. The thing is, I'm about 99.8% sure that this is NOT your general position. I'm fairly confident that you have no interest in getting rid of laws against murder, fraud, embezzlement, rape, etc. I'm fairly sure that you support a great many laws that address very rare events.

That means that your argument here in this situation is special pleading. Unless I'm wrong in my assessment of you, in which case please feel free to set me straight.

Now, let's back it up to the first bit. No law or regulation is ever going to guarantee that the regulated event will never happen. All laws and regulations are intended to serve one of two purposes, or both: 1) To reduce the likelihood of the event occurring, by making it clear that the event is disallowed and 2) To provide a means of redress in the event that the event does occur.

Your complaint that my position doesn't completely eliminate every single possibility of medically unjustified late term abortions ever happening is misplaced and is a red herring.

 

[Emily Lake]

If I understand Emily's position, she wishes to minimize "convenience abortions" (a terrible term, but shorthand for abortions that have no basis in health or health risk to anyone) in the last portion of the trimester.

Shorthand, but generally correct.

In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage.

Clarifying questions:
1) What costs (not necessarily monetary of course) are you envisioning?
2) Who do you believe is subjected to those costs?

Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

Clarifying question:
What benefit do you believe is gained that outweighs the cost, and who is gaining that benefit?

 

[Emily Lake]

'm supporting roadblocks for medically justified third trimester abortions by... explicitly and unambiguously allowing medically justified third trimester abortions.

... and specifying the source of justifications.
Prayza load, now it's two doctors instead of a legislature.

Which really makes you wonder why all this time she has been promoting conservatives and not condemning them roundly, since that's WAY more than 2 doctors worth of decision-makers involved.

I haven't been promoting conservatives. FFS, at what point did Roe v Wade become a conservative position?

 

[laughing dog]

If I understand Emily's position, she wishes to minimize "convenience abortions" (a terrible term, but shorthand for abortions that have no basis in health or health risk to anyone) in the last portion of the trimester.

Shorthand, but generally correct.

In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage.

Clarifying questions:
1) What costs (not necessarily monetary of course) are you envisioning?
2) Who do you believe is subjected to those costs?

Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

Clarifying question:
What benefit do you believe is gained that outweighs the cost, and who is gaining that benefit?

I think that the costs include the effort and time to satisfy the roadblock conditions, the additional physical and mental anguish stemming from the postponement of the eventually allowed abortion, and the financial costs of those who travel to get such an abortion, and the physical and emotional costs to those whose abortion requests are denied and prevented.

The benefits are the elimination of the above costs which are born by the women and any medical professional, along with the benefits to society of not using resources to interfere with private medical decisions. All of which, IMO, vastly outweigh the prevention of the tiny fraction of prevented "convenience abortions".