Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason I’m not 100% in agreement with you, Emily, is that I am certain there are very rare events when either the mother or the fetus’ life can be saved but not both. Saving the mother would result in the death of a full term, viable fetus and could possibly construed as ‘abortion.’

I'm having a very hard time picturing a situation where a doctor has a choice. The choose only one cases come earlier where saving the woman damages or kills the fetus. But at term what scenario gives time to make a choice but can't be resolved by an emergency c-section? (Not to say that things can't go wrong. There are scenarios that lead to death, but I'm not aware of any that give the doctor a choice in the matter without a time machine.)

An emergency c-section can be performed—-in a hospital setting. Sometimes, without anesthesia. Yes, I wrote that because I know personally of a case when that happened. I can only imagine! Not every woman makes it to the hospital in time to deliver her baby and may deliver en route or at home or any number of places. Many times, perhaps most if the time, these deliveries progress and a healthy baby is delivered to a healthy woman.

I'm not questioning whether things can go badly wrong. I was questioning what scenario gives the doctor a choice of who to save.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

ETA: Be aware that the latest period for unrestricted abortions in Europe is 24 weeks.

And when there's one doc in the middle of nowhere (town ER, there's often only one doc) he has to let the woman die if transfer is not possible (say, blizzard, or simply too far to make it.)

Fine. Make it "two qualified medical professionals". Does that suffice?

 

[Emily Lake]

Fetuses aren't persons, so they are not a "someone" which makes your question moot.

Says you. To a lot of mothers and couples awaiting the birth of their child, the fetus is most definitely a person. They often begin selecting names, buy clothes, create rooms for their baby, etc. They most certainly regard their unborn child as a person. Would you go up to a woman who's nine months pregnant and tell her her child is not a person, not a someone? No, you wouldn't.

You’re right because it is none if my business. We are talking about personhood for the law, so it doesn’t what they feel or think.

I want to stress test your premise.

Let's say a mugger kicks a 37 week pregnant woman in the stomach, causing her to miscarry and lose her baby (and I guarantee she thinks of it as a baby, not a fetus). Do you think that mugger should only be charged for assault? Do you believe the law should be prohibited from charging the mugger with homicide?

 

[Emily Lake]

There's this thing called adoption, it's been around pretty much forever. Even animals have been known to adopt and rear someone else's offspring.

So you believe in forced carrying to term.

In the third trimester, when there's no fetal defect and no known risk to the mother, yes I do. Are you just catching on to this now?

 

[Emily Lake]

We got here by allowing the law (legislators) to intervene in some more extreme cases, and now we have 19 States with draconian abortion laws that are killing far more people than RvW did.

No shit. We're in this mess because RvW was never an actual law, it was a legal interpretation. Make it a law, and those 19 states are no longer a problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

And always out of date as medical practice changes. The law says very little about how to actually doctor--and when it does it almost always is sticking itself between doctor and patient. In practice it's left up to the medical boards and they evaluate behavior relevant to accepted practices rather than against some standard written in stone.

Yep, and that's totally why it's entirely up to medical boards to decide whether or not euthanasia was appropriate, and the law has no say in it at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reflexes happen at a lower level than consciousness. You can have reflexes without a functioning higher brain.

As for that 25 week preemie--the odds they end up damaged is high. And what's your support for 30 weeks not needing the NICU?

I would yet again argue this point, that reflexes happen "beneath" consciousness. Rather, in a part of oneself that is purely reactive, and not individual.

I could take or leave such parts of 'me' like I take or leave a pair of socks, were it so simple.

Rather, the part that doesn't function is the part that accepts and values the existence of other people, rather than just using them as rhetorical pawns.

The problem I see with the "pro-life" people is their use of the fetuses as a rhetorical pawns that they discard outside of their argument.

I meant "lower level" in a physical sense. You can have reflexes in the brain stem even when the more advanced parts are gone. That's how we get people who are legally dead yet their life functions continue.

 

[Emily Lake]

Even one signature in an emergency is unacceptable when dealing with emergency medicine. Saving the patient comes before documenting it.

Why do you people keep assuming that documentation is required PRIOR TO rendering services?

I've heard of doctors simply grabbing a scalpel and going in with no anesthesia, no notice--because they knew the patient wouldn't live long enough to take such steps. A larger artery blows, you have to stop the bleeding very quickly. Pressure from outside won't help if it's somewhere in the torso--the only possibility is getting to it in time to compress it by hand. (Note that most of the time such a diagnosis is made at autopsy.)

Sure, but you know what they do after having saved the patient's life? They document the conditions and circumstances that led to the procedure. Shocking, really.

 

[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.

In an earlier thread you were defining as acceptable abortions when the pregnancy couldn't continue and fetal defects were to be expected, but then dropped it when I showed that your standard unquestionably permitted the 7th month and perhaps as far as a few weeks from delivery.

I absolutely did NOT drop it.

As evidenced by what you quoted just one page prior:

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.

ETA: Be aware that the latest period for unrestricted abortions in Europe is 24 weeks.

And when there's one doc in the middle of nowhere (town ER, there's often only one doc) he has to let the woman die if transfer is not possible (say, blizzard, or simply too far to make it.)

 

[Toni]

The reason I’m not 100% in agreement with you, Emily, is that I am certain there are very rare events when either the mother or the fetus’ life can be saved but not both. Saving the mother would result in the death of a full term, viable fetus and could possibly construed as ‘abortion.’

I'm having a very hard time picturing a situation where a doctor has a choice. The choose only one cases come earlier where saving the woman damages or kills the fetus. But at term what scenario gives time to make a choice but can't be resolved by an emergency c-section? (Not to say that things can't go wrong. There are scenarios that lead to death, but I'm not aware of any that give the doctor a choice in the matter without a time machine.)

An emergency c-section can be performed—-in a hospital setting. Sometimes, without anesthesia. Yes, I wrote that because I know personally of a case when that happened. I can only imagine! Not every woman makes it to the hospital in time to deliver her baby and may deliver en route or at home or any number of places. Many times, perhaps most if the time, these deliveries progress and a healthy baby is delivered to a healthy woman.

I'm not questioning whether things can go badly wrong. I was questioning what scenario gives the doctor a choice of who to save.

I don’t know the circumstances under which the c-section without anesthesia was performed except that it was an emergency and there was no anesthesiologist who was not already in a different t procure. I imagine it was a case of: try to save them both and hope for at least one or lose them both scenario.

I know of a woman whi chose not to have chemo because it would harm the baby and the woman died. But that was her choice,

I can imagine under some circumstances an immediate c-section would be necessary to save the fetus. The mother would be at increased risk even barring any other factors.

Mother involved in a serious accident/-surgery to save mom would kill fetus—

 

[Toni]

What I personally believe is that there likely exists a circumstance where the scenario you so broadly described would in fact be the better choice.

Can you describe a hypothetical circumstance in which you think it would be ethical and appropriate to terminate a healthy third trimester fetus that presents no known health risk to the mother? I'm not asking for hard data, I'll be content with a ferinstance.

And that it is not MY choice or YOUR choice to decide. Nor is it lawmakers' choice to decide nor law enforcement's choice to make.

But it *is* the lawmaker's decision to make when it pertains to euthanasia, is it not? Providing guidelines for when it is allowable or defensible to deprive someone of life seems like a reasonable thing for lawmakers to do.

I don’t think it should be the law maker’s decision re: euthanasia. I’m not certain it is in every state.

 

[Toni]

Do you support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses?

You forgot to answer, Emily.

Elixir, this is you being disingenuous. I don't know how many possible ways I can say that the mother's life always wins, and if there's any risk to her life or health, abortion is perfectly justified. I've been consistently clear about that from the start.

I do NOT support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses, I never have, and nothing I have proposed does so.

I may be mistaken but I believe you wish a return to Roe v Wade? It is quite possible that laws could be written to favor saving the fetus no matter the risk to the mother in 3rd trimester pregnancies.

 

[Elixir]

We got here by allowing the law (legislators) to intervene in some more extreme cases, and now we have 19 States with draconian abortion laws that are killing far more people than RvW did.

No shit. We're in this mess because RvW was never an actual law, it was a legal interpretation. Make it a law, and those 19 states are no longer a problem.

Please do. If it needs to be a Constitutional amendment of its own instead of relying on “clauses”, please write it in stone. Thank you.

I’d prefer that such an amendment forbid the law from having anything whatsoever to do with reproductive health care for moral, ethical and logical reasons I have repeated ad nauseum. RvW was not quite the overt tragedy that it has led to, as “an interpretation” of a clause. A rather tortured interpretation IMO, but obviously your privacy is not an issue to SCROTUS

Right now you’re getting all righteous and worked up over a fantasy. I don’t think a Constitutional Amendment is in the cards.

 

[laughing dog]

There's this thing called adoption, it's been around pretty much forever. Even animals have been known to adopt and rear someone else's offspring.

So you believe in forced carrying to term.

In the third trimester, when there's no fetal defect and no known risk to the mother, yes I do. Are you just catching on to this now?

No, I just thought such a position is the province of nutjob religionists and dystopian science fiction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since we are nitpicking evolution: we are clearly not evolved to eat human. Specifically, we are vulnerable to prion disease.

By that logic, we are most certainly not "evolved to eat" any sort of livestock, as nearly all of our serious epidemic diseases have a zoonotic origin.

No. There's a chance of zoonotic disease from associating with animals. Loops will in time ensure you get prion problems. The natural rate is on the order of 1 in a million. Turn enough downer cattle into cattle feed and eventually you'll get one. Now you have several. And note that infected cattle are more likely to be downer cattle. Spread one cow into feed for many cows and it doesn't take long for a big problem to develop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There still are limits, though.

The limits can even be extended, but they're still limits.

The McMurtry Spéirling is a record-breaking, track-focused, electric hypercar with a unique fan-based downforce system, envisioned by Sir David McMurtry, and is limited to 100 units, with deliveries starting in 2025

WANT ONE!

View attachment 49825

The McMurtry Spéirling can handle over 3G of cornering force thanks to its unique active downforce system using twin fans, allowing it to corner at speeds and in ways that are otherwise impossible

I wasn't aware of a fan-based downforce system but that's really just a variant on what race cars do with their wings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There still are limits, though.

The limits can even be extended, but they're still limits.

The McMurtry Spéirling is a record-breaking, track-focused, electric hypercar with a unique fan-based downforce system, envisioned by Sir David McMurtry, and is limited to 100 units, with deliveries starting in 2025

WANT ONE!

View attachment 49825

The McMurtry Spéirling can handle over 3G of cornering force thanks to its unique active downforce system using twin fans, allowing it to corner at speeds and in ways that are otherwise impossible

Just to be clear, if the car is doing 3Gs, so is the driver!

My thought exactly. Not too bad for a second or two, but taking a long sweeping curve at 3gs might require a fighter jet-style pressure suit to keep the driver from passing out.

The force is to the side, not to the ground.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you think women will die? Seriously, this is where I end up thinking you guys can't be assed to actually read and use your brains.

If the law explicitly allows abortions if there's a risk to the mother's life or health... why would they die? Do you think doctors are so inept that they're incapable of making a medical decision of risk?

We think women will die because women are already dying.

Women are dying under TOTAL ABORTION BANS.

Given that I'm not proposing a total ban... why do you think this is a reasonable counter argument?

The problem is that the politicians are sending two messages to the doctors:

1) Perform abortions when needed to save a woman's life.
2) There is no situation in which an abortion is needed to save a woman's life.

Faced with an impossible choice doctors are going to take the more defensible position: not performing the abortion. It's the same thing you always see when the law is contradictory: what you actually see is the most clearly defined measure, whether or not that's correct.

How exactly do you think this is relevant to what I have proposed?

How many women die for lack of abortions in your sunny nation? Is this a serious problem that you're out campaigning to fix?

He's not the one with the problem. Last I had a count for how many our country has sacrificed it was at three, I know there have been more but I've lost the count (lost track of which cases were repeats vs new cases.)

How many of those were when RvW was in place? How many of those would have occurred when there are clear guidelines for when a third trimester abortion is legal, and when the requirement is that the doctor document the relevant medical conditions in their records?

I'm talking about situations where in theory abortions to save the woman are permitted. But in practice it's being used to kill them. Your position feels an awful lot like the yes but not really that we are seeing now.

 

[ZiprHead]

If she had actually gone to the actual website advertisement where she could have seen this:

View attachment 49823

"delivery of a stillborn". It says nothing about actually killing the fetus.

Wow, you're kind of digging all the way down into pedantry here. It's an abortion. It's not removal of an already stillborn fetus. The fetus is killed in the process, so that by the time it's actually removed, it's stillborn. But it's not stillborn when they start the procedure.

Can you show me from the description of the procedure the point where the fetus is killed?

Still waiting for an answer.

 

[ZiprHead]

There still are limits, though.

The limits can even be extended, but they're still limits.

The McMurtry Spéirling is a record-breaking, track-focused, electric hypercar with a unique fan-based downforce system, envisioned by Sir David McMurtry, and is limited to 100 units, with deliveries starting in 2025

WANT ONE!

View attachment 49825

The McMurtry Spéirling can handle over 3G of cornering force thanks to its unique active downforce system using twin fans, allowing it to corner at speeds and in ways that are otherwise impossible

Just to be clear, if the car is doing 3Gs, so is the driver!

My thought exactly. Not too bad for a second or two, but taking a long sweeping curve at 3gs might require a fighter jet-style pressure suit to keep the driver from passing out.

The force is to the side, not to the ground.

This is a huge derail. Loren, why are you participating when you should be shutting it down?