Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

All of that would be the point of requiring a speciality with such training.

I'm not being difficult here, LD, I'm asking genuine questions because I truly don't think you've thought this all the way through. At a minimum I think you've got some unacknowledged assumptions that are flawed.

Do you think that having gone through specialty training somehow guarantees that a doctor will actually do a full psych eval, and tried all of the other therapies before acquiescing to the patient's desire for suicide?

What happens if they don't do those things? What is to prevent a doctor from holding the sincere deep belief that anyone should be able to die at their wish, for any reason whatsoever?

There are people who hold that view, I've met them, I've interacted with them. If some people hold that view, why would you assume that no doctors would hold that view?

What safeguards do you imagine are in place to prevent an inappropriate death from occurring?

 

[Emily Lake]

There's no spinning, LD. Legislation is involved because we, as a society (albeit local) are making the decision to grant exceptions to what would otherwise be deemed murder. Whether or not an action that deprives someone of their life is considered to be murder is a legal decision.

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Legislators are not doctors and they have an agenda, that agenda being the desire that there are no abortions under any circumstances

It's a political agenda, not a health based agenda.

Alrighty, you've now completely flipped my proposed position into something that I do not hold, and that cannot even remotely be supported by anything I've said. Furthermore, you're simply wrong on this. There are a whole lot of legislators who do NOT seek to ban abortions across the board. In fact, outside of a handful of religious right politicians, most legislators hold the same view as most citizens - that RvW was a reasonable and appropriate balance.

 

[Emily Lake]

Certainly: the same authority our society places over nearly everything in life, democracy.

You misspelled “law enforcement”.
I must have missed where Ems suggested putting abortion to a vote, case by case.

I must have missed where "democracy" means "We don't have any laws; the entire population just votes on whether to put somebody in jail, case by case."

How is democracy going to regulate abortion? My suggestion is via professional medical regulatory boards.
You and Ems gravitate to law enforcement.

How is democracy going to regulate assisted suicide?

Guess how it does it? Via legislation - by setting legal guidelines that allow for specific instances to be exceptions from murder.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whether or not preventing a late-term abortion benefits nobody but lawyers has still to be answered. You are simply presuming your opinion that a fetus doesn't count as "someone" to be fact. Your own stated principle implies if Emily's dishonest, so are you.

So the criteria for personhood raises it ugly hard again.
You’re right. My presumption is that no fetus has equal default value to that of a person who has friends, memories, likes and dislikes, maybe even a favorite color and a number of people who know their name, food preferences and all the other stuff I associate with PEOPLE.

By your logic, a three month old baby is not a person. By extension of your logic, it should be perfectly legal for a mother to drown her three month old baby if she decides she's no longer up to the task of caring for it.

By your logic, a 90 year old is more of a person than a 5 year old. By extension of your logic, that 90 year old has a greater right to life than a 5 year old.

YOU have refused to state your own beliefs under the guise of belief that it doesn’t matter. I take it that this is supposed to elevate your statements to some level of objectivity that cannot be attained except by presuming fetuses to have equal or greater value to that of a person.

Since it seems that you haven't caught on, Bomb#20 frequently critiques the quality and logic of arguments in and of themselves, without actually putting forth one of their own. From what I can tell, Bomb#20 is relatively private about their own views and beliefs - but they definitely value logic and rationality.

Standing on your high horse and talking down to me for voicing my opinion without voicing your own and without offering any reason to disagree with mine, seems kinda smarmy to me.

Why do you think you're in a position to demand that the quality of your arguments - whether or not they're rational or reasonable or well formed - are above reproach unless the person pointing out the flaws in your logic presents an argument of their own?

Tellya what - let me know why I should consider a fetus to have the same value as my wife, and you can change my mind.
I’m waiting.

I don't expected that you should consider ANY other human being to have the same value TO YOU as your wife does.

 

[Emily Lake]

It’s too simple, convenient and easy to simply deem every living human cell of equal value. Declaring their value to be infinite obviates any need to make hard decisions, and makes every blastocyst’s value equal to that of every philanthropist, artist or professor. I think that’s BS right on the face of it. But admitting that it ain’t so, forces hard decisions and judgments of relative value.

What you're complaining against has not been suggested by anyone in this thread. Not a single person. Therefore, you are either incredibly mistaken and incapable of actual comprehension... or you are arguing against a strawman in an attempt to paint your opponents as evil.

 

[Emily Lake]

I did suggest creating federal legislation.

Thank you for confirming.
May I assume that the intent of such federal legislation would be to reduce the incidence of abortion, by dissuading some of those who would seek an optional late term abortion from doing so?

The objective is to disallow late term abortions that do not have a solid medical indication for them.

Put bluntly: The objective is to make it illegal to kill babies for convenience, even if such situations would be rare.

I don't get this. It was ALREADY illegal to abort beyond viability in Roe v Wade. So what are you going on about? There is 'no such thing' as "late term abortion". That phrase was made up by the RTL nutters and is NOT a medical term.

No, you don't get it.

I'm arguing that we should make a very serious and concerted effort to put forth actual legislation that makes RvW an actual federal law. Same basic structure (which I've presented a few dozen times already):

Unrestricted abortion access for the first two trimesters; abortions limited to medically indicated in the third trimester and allowable only when the mother's life or health is at risk, or when the fetus is damaged and unlikely to survive or thrive. The requirement placed on doctors for this is to document the conditions that drive the medical indication for a third trimester abortion, with records subject to audit.

That's what I'm arguing for - and I'm arguing for it because some of the states currently have complete bans or have limits that are absurdly low and unreasonable. And some other states have absolutely no limitations of any sort whatsoever, and it is legal to get an abortion right up until the moment they're delivered - which I also think is unreasonable.

And for supporting Roe v Wade... I've got Elixir painting me as a monster who wants to see women bleed out in the parking lot waiting for lawyers to determine whether she's allowed to get care, and I've got Jarhyn oh-so-uncleverly calling me a nazi who wants to put homeless people in concentration camps.

So. Now that you're caught up... how do you feel about reinstituting RvW as a federal law, fully enacted, rather than as an interpretation?

 

[Emily Lake]

It’s what Emily refuses to address that is the problem. Her implication remains
“The objective is to disallow late term abortions that do not have a solid medical indication for them in the opinion of a third party from the law enforcement community, whose opinion must be rendered prior to the performance of an abortion”.

This is blatantly false. I have corrected you on this repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms.

It appears that you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. Knock it off.

 

[Elixir]

How is democracy going to regulate assisted suicide?

By conceding authority to those with the expertise and experience in end of life decisions conferred upon them by their community and peers, manifest as trust, revocable by their professional board if applicable, and punishable by law if abused. The patient is not gonna bleed out while awaiting a "ruling", so I don't even know why you asked or what you mean to imply.

Maybe you would prefer the another notion of democracy; the top down model. Because the possibility of rogue "suicide communities" offing people who don't want to be offed, is such a dire spectre that the only way to be safe is to send teams of political pundits from Washington DC to take witness testimony and patient testimony and hold meetings about the propriety of letting the Pt make their own decision in each case?

Or Maybe appoint a high level government-endorsed medical expert as arbitrator.

Spoiler

like RFK Jr.

I think you know I am skeptical of the humane results rendered by getting government involved in medical decisions, but here, repercussions are clear.
As a metaphor for the abortion "question", getting government involved in this medical decision would mean the Pt dies of old age awaiting some upper Court's decision.

 

[Elixir]

It appears that you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. Knock it off.

I am NOT. Sharpen your vision.
I have been somewhat hyperbolic, mainly due to the fact that anything more subtle goes over your head. Grow up.
You recommend stuff that you know causes treatment delays that can kill people and cause them to suffer needlessly.
Your objection to mu position reduces to "What about the chilluns? If it only saves ONE child, wouldn't it be worth it?"
My answer is NO. And, I am not even conviced that it would save one child.

Unless you commit to two doctors being sufficient endorsement and default permission should two doctors not be available, you are reverting to "some authority" meaning LEGAL authority having to give permission in advance.

BTW you don't even acknowledge my views as having any merit, so strong is your need for "an authority".
I wouldn't mind that except I prefer to be challenged in thinking about it, not bored with having to repeat my "position". Here it is again.
I OPPOSE ABORTION LAWS

Ask me why?
In a perfect world I'd oppose drug laws too, but we're not quite there, and getting further away by the day.

 

[thebeave]

How is democracy going to regulate assisted suicide?

By conceding authority to those with the expertise and experience in end of life decisions conferred upon them by their community and peers, manifest as trust, revocable by their professional board if applicable, and punishable by law if abused. The patient is not gonna bleed out while awaiting a "ruling", so I don't even know why you asked or what you mean to imply.

Maybe you would prefer the another notion of democracy; the top down model. Because the possibility of rogue "suicide communities" offing people who don't want to be offed, is such a dire spectre that the only way to be safe is to send teams of political pundits from Washington DC to take witness testimony and patient testimony and hold meetings about the propriety of letting the Pt make their own decision in each case?

Or Maybe appoint a high level government-endorsed medical expert as arbitrator.

Spoiler

like JFK Jr.

I think you know I am skeptical of the humane results rendered by getting government involved in medical decisions, but here, repercussions are clear.
As a metaphor for the abortion "question", getting government involved in medical decision means the Pt dies of old age awaiting some upper Court's decision.

You mean this guy?




How you doin'?

 

[Elixir]

You mean this guy?

Maybe... looks like a nice guy. Almost Dr Kildaire-ish.

How you doin'?

Just FKing up my FKs, a little case of brainworm.
(fixed, thanks!)

 

[Emily Lake]

How is democracy going to regulate assisted suicide?

By conceding authority to those with the expertise and experience in end of life decisions conferred upon them by their community and peers, manifest as trust, revocable by their professional board if applicable, and punishable by law if abused. The patient is not gonna bleed out while awaiting a "ruling", so I don't even know why you asked or what you mean to imply.

OMG, how could you possibly even countenance having any legal interference in the practice of medicine at all! That's unconscionably and authoritarian!!!11111

 

[Emily Lake]

It appears that you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. Knock it off.

I am NOT. Sharpen your vision.
I have been somewhat hyperbolic, mainly due to the fact that anything more subtle goes over your head. Grow up.
You recommend stuff that you know causes treatment delays that can kill people and cause them to suffer needlessly.

Bullshit. In what way does THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD cause a treatment delay?

That's what I've recommended. Your assertion that it causes delays and kills people is so far beyond hyperbolic that it ventures into the land of fantasy.

Your objection to mu position reduces to "What about the chilluns? If it only saves ONE child, wouldn't it be worth it?"
My answer is NO. And, I am not even conviced that it would save one child.

Unless you commit to two doctors being sufficient endorsement and default permission should two doctors not be available, you are reverting to "some authority" meaning LEGAL authority having to give permission in advance.

Again, what part of SUBJECT TO AUDIT results in a legal authority having to give permission in advance? I've corrected you on this several times, and you just keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again.

BTW you don't even acknowledge my views as having any merit, so strong is your need for "an authority".
I wouldn't mind that except I prefer to be challenged in thinking about it, not bored with having to repeat my "position". Here it is again.
I OPPOSE ABORTION LAWS

I get that you oppose all abortion laws of any sort whatsoever. I disagree with you about that. Particularly, I disagree with you on the grounds that location doesn't make the difference between a person who merits protection from murder and person who merits no protection from murder. And I disagree with you that personhood is magically conferred via either the physician's hands or the mother's vagina. I do not see any meaningful distinction between the personhood of a 35 week developed baby in an incubator and a 35 week baby in a uterus. You have provided nothing whatsoever to convince me that the former is a person and the latter is just a lump of cells.

All you've managed to do is to repeatedly misrepresent my view and treat me as if I want women to die out of some weird religious zeal.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's no spinning, LD. Legislation is involved because we, as a society (albeit local) are making the decision to grant exceptions to what would otherwise be deemed murder. Whether or not an action that deprives someone of their life is considered to be murder is a legal decision.

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Legislators are not doctors and they have an agenda, that agenda being the desire that there are no abortions under any circumstances

It's a political agenda, not a health based agenda.

Alrighty, you've now completely flipped my proposed position into something that I do not hold, and that cannot even remotely be supported by anything I've said. Furthermore, you're simply wrong on this. There are a whole lot of legislators who do NOT seek to ban abortions across the board. In fact, outside of a handful of religious right politicians, most legislators hold the same view as most citizens - that RvW was a reasonable and appropriate balance.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The Republicans are in charge now including in the Supreme Court. That may not be the position you hold but that is the position of the people in charge.

Here's a challenge for you. Write your version of the restriction on late term abortions you would like to see enacted and takes into account the mother's life and all the ways it can be threatened.

And enough of the Nazi bullshit, please. Emily has a noble goal. I just think she's going about it in the wrong way. Calling her a Nazi is way over the line, IMO.

 

[Elixir]

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

OMFG. Something new with every post.
Nothing whatsoever is wrong with that, now that you have left the government out of the equation.
What happened to “we need an authority”?
Your platform is so unstable I fear you’ll fall off.
If that is extent of what you’d require I congratulate you for coming around. I suspect you’ll be back to wanting legal permissions by tomorrow, though.

Legislation is involved

Ooops. That didn’t last long.
Which is it?
BTW docs are already required to document what they do and why.

 

[Elixir]

And I disagree with you that personhood is magically conferred via either the physician's hands or the mother's vagina.

I disagree with that and other inferences you dream up. I have stated clearly that
A) I make no claim to knowing about “personhood” and
B) I don’t believe that an unidentifiable mystical property called personhood is an appropriate thing (opinion) upon which to base medical decisions.

Stop misrepresenting me. That was not hyperbole, Ems, just whole cloth fabrication.

 

[Elixir]

How is democracy going to regulate assisted suicide?

By conceding authority to those with the expertise and experience in end of life decisions conferred upon them by their community and peers, manifest as trust, revocable by their professional board if applicable, and punishable by law if abused. The patient is not gonna bleed out while awaiting a "ruling", so I don't even know why you asked or what you mean to imply.

OMG, how could you possibly even countenance having any legal interference in the practice of medicine at all! That's unconscionably and authoritarian!!!11111

. The personhood of the Pt in this case is not debatable unless they are effectively brain dead. FYI in that case next of kin may decide to pull the plug.
That’s how.
Work on reading comprehension Emily.
I am not countenancing any interference. I am countenancing punishment for abuse by an authoritative figure AFTER THE FACT. Deterrent, not preventative.

 

[Bomb#20]

The objective is to disallow late term abortions that do not have a solid medical indication for them.

Put bluntly: The objective is to make it illegal to kill babies for convenience, even if such situations would be rare.

I don't get this. It was ALREADY illegal to abort beyond viability in Roe v Wade. So what are you going on about? There is 'no such thing' as "late term abortion". That phrase was made up by the RTL nutters and is NOT a medical term.

Two points. First, RvW did not make any abortions illegal. It was a decision to overturn a Texas law by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is rarely in the business of telling random citizens what they can't do; its job is to tell governments what they can't do. RvW set a uniform lower bound on how liberal abortion laws had to be; the justices overturned the Texas law for not being liberal enough. But in RvW there's no such thing as being too liberal, no upper bound -- if a state government chose to have an abortion law more liberal than RvW required, that was perfectly fine. As thebeave pointed out, some states did that.

And second, one of the provisions of the RvW lower bound specified that states can't prohibit medically necessary abortions. If a state wants to ban third-trimester abortions it can, but it has to make an exception when continuing the pregnancy is going to injure or kill the mother. So even under the most illiberal abortion law RvW permits, yes, there is such a thing as a late term abortion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whether or not preventing a late-term abortion benefits nobody but lawyers has still to be answered. You are simply presuming your opinion that a fetus doesn't count as "someone" to be fact. Your own stated principle implies if Emily's dishonest, so are you.

So the criteria for personhood raises it ugly hard again.
You’re right. My presumption is that no fetus has equal default value to that of a person who has friends, memories, likes and dislikes, maybe even a favorite color and a number of people who know their name, food preferences and all the other stuff I associate with PEOPLE.
YOU have refused to state your own beliefs under the guise of belief that it doesn’t matter. I take it that this is supposed to elevate your statements to some level of objectivity that cannot be attained except by presuming fetuses to have equal or greater value to that of a person.
Standing on your high horse and talking down to me for voicing my opinion without voicing your own and without offering any reason to disagree with mine, seems kinda smarmy to me.
Tellya what - let me know why I should consider a fetus to have the same value as my wife, and you can change my mind.
I’m waiting.

And neither do newborn babies. I take it you're not OK with killing newborns?

Less okay, yeah.
People generally gain value upon participation. At first they gain value with every breath. Do you disagree?

I don’t expect proponents of abortion laws to offer the kind of straightforward answers that I provide, but I urge y’all to think about it so that some day you might gain that ability.
It’s too simple, convenient and easy to simply deem every living human cell of equal value. Declaring their value to be infinite obviates any need to make hard decisions, and makes every blastocyst’s value equal to that of every philanthropist, artist or professor. I think that’s BS right on the face of it. But admitting that it ain’t so, forces hard decisions and judgments of relative value.
That’s life and IMHO a human responsibility.

No, I don't agree. I see no substantial difference in life value between a baby that will be delivered in 10 minutes versus a baby that was born 10 minutes ago and breathed, for example.

The law does. The law sees substantial difference between the two. In America, before it is born, it's citizenship is in doubt, if not American parents. After it is born (Trump claims aside), it is an American. It has a right to a social security number, can have life insurance, can be filed as a dependent, any harm to it is against the law.

Your gray-area threshold issue isn't particularly notable. We have thresholds throughout the legal system. Is there a viable difference between someone who is 17.9 years old and 18.0001 years old that justifies being able to vote, buy lottery tickets, die in the military?

Late term abortions have been a very successfully devised red herring by conservatives who want to argue against abortion in general. The reality is that they are a very rare procedure that are generally performed due to a failed pregnancy.

 

[Elixir]

If a state wants to ban third-trimester abortions it can, but it has to make an exception when continuing the pregnancy is going to injure or kill the mother. So even under the most illiberal abortion law RvW permits, yes, there is such a thing as a late term abortion.

There is also such a thing as bleeding out while politicians debate the likelihood of the pregnancy injuring or killing the mother.

I don’t know how putative “grownups” can keep forgetting about that.

Late term abortions have been a very successfully devised red herring by conservatives who want to argue against abortion in general. The reality is that they are a very rare procedure that are generally performed due to a failed pregnancy.

QFT