Roe v Wade is on deck

[thebeave]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Yes. But no one is arguing that someone must take that risk.

There are ony two choices. If the baby is unwanted, and its 3rd trimester you can abort or carry to term. You must assume one of these two risks, regardless.

From my brief search, the risks are not that far apart. They are within the same order of magnitude.

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023

So, its apparently safer to the mother to give birth, than have a 3rd trimester abortion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Anything in the third trimester has risk. Particularly to the woman. A woman who apparently doesn't have much in the way in say on the actions being expected of her by a few here.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody here has taken the extreme position that a zygote is a person from day one - we all recognize that as an extreme and irrational position.

“We” do??
What changes between conception and week 20-whatever that is your magic “bar of personhood”?
Nothing.
And you are STILL unable to address (other than to dismiss) the harm/benefit equation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Yes. But no one is arguing that someone must take that risk.

There are ony two choices. If the baby is unwanted, and its 3rd trimester you can abort or carry to term. You must assume one of these two risks, regardless.

The pregnant woman must assume.

From my brief search, the risks are not that far apart, especially if the woman is older. They are within the same order of magnitude.

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortaility risk in 3rd trimester abortion rises substantially with age. After age 40 it shoots to 87 per 100,000.

Why is 77 -> 87 "shooting up" while 19 v 77 "same order of magnitude"?

I'd also venture there is an asterisk here, as almost all third trimesters involve unviable pregnancies which likely include complications that must be dealt with in the procedure.

So comparing that stat with the red herring of recreational third trimester abortions isn't likely as viable.

 

[Elixir]

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023

Obviously that’s because the vast vast majority of third trimester abortion are medical emergencies. Delaying them is how PEOPLE end up dead.

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

And that ^ is the basis for the laws Emily favors. That which sounds reprehensible must be prevented at all cost, even if people die.
Yes, I know that’s “NOT MY POSITION!!”,
It’s just the “reasoning” behind her amorphous position.
IMHO that is reprehensible, and there is a legion of dead people echoing that opinion.

 

[thebeave]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Yes. But no one is arguing that someone must take that risk.

There are ony two choices. If the baby is unwanted, and its 3rd trimester you can abort or carry to term. You must assume one of these two risks, regardless.

The pregnant woman must assume.

From my brief search, the risks are not that far apart, especially if the woman is older. They are within the same order of magnitude.

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortaility risk in 3rd trimester abortion rises substantially with age. After age 40 it shoots to 87 per 100,000.

Why is 77 -> 87 "shooting up" while 19 v 77 "same order of magnitude"?

I'd also venture there is an asterisk here, as almost all third trimesters involve unviable pregnancies which likely include complications that must be dealt with in the procedure.

So comparing that stat with the red herring of recreational third trimester abortions isn't likely as viable.

The 77 and 19 numbers in my first two lines are correct. I'm going to delete the third line. I can't find the source I got it from (i'm still in the process of waking up here!) , and its somewhat irrelevant anyway. Risk goes up with age for both abortion and giving birth.

 

[Jarhyn]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Yes. But no one is arguing that someone must take that risk.

There are ony two choices. If the baby is unwanted, and its 3rd trimester you can abort or carry to term. You must assume one of these two risks, regardless.

From my brief search, the risks are not that far apart. They are within the same order of magnitude.

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023

So, its apparently safer to the mother to give birth, than have a 3rd trimester abortion.

The problem here: third trimester abortions happen when things are abnormal.

Full term births happen when things are normal.

There is absolutely going to be a selection bias because the risk pools aren't even the same beforehand.

You could have asked someone more statistics-literate but you didn't.

You would have to control the initial selection population by the exact disorders/conditions and situations that occurred specifically in the pool of 3rd trimester abortions.

You're comparing situations that have already gone sideways in some way to a population almost exclusively populated by nominal situations. Of course the situations that were so sideways they required an abortion were more fatal on average... And third trimester abortions simply do not happen with healthy fetuses, let alone in high enough numbers to compare the control group.

You're literally comparing ectopic and stillbirth pregnancies to healthy ones capturing the inevitable deaths from an already horrific situation along with the avoidable ones.

 

[Elixir]

You're literally comparing ectopic and stillbirth pregnancies to healthy ones capturing the inevitable deaths from an already horrific situation along with the avoidable ones.

Ectopic pregnancies do not get to the third trimester. Ever, afaik. The mom is dead by then if the fetus has not been removed.

 

[laughing dog]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Yes. But no one is arguing that someone must take that risk.

There are ony two choices. If the baby is unwanted, and its 3rd trimester you can abort or carry to term. You must assume one of these two risks, regardless.

From my brief search, the risks are not that far apart. They are within the same order of magnitude.

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023

So, its apparently safer to the mother to give birth, than have a 3rd trimester abortion.

None of that addresses my point. The relative riskiness of abortion vs carrying to term in the 3rd trimester is irrelevant to the issue of requiring a woman to accept a health risk. Requiring a woman to carry to term in the 3rd semester is putting her at the risk. Since abortion is elective, the woman can choose to take the risk.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're literally comparing ectopic and stillbirth pregnancies to healthy ones capturing the inevitable deaths from an already horrific situation along with the avoidable ones.

Ectopic pregnancies do not get to the third trimester. Ever, afaik. The mom is dead by then if the fetus has not been removed.

Fair enough. But my point still stands that it's the dangerous situations that ever end up looking at a third trimester abortion. You would really need to compare cases with the same situations and that just won't happen.

In the vanishing and vast majority of those 77/100k cases, the doctor looked at the situation and said "this is less risky, to abort".

Also, you would really have to make a representative selection from all third trimester delivery events, including third trimester stillbirts, and it would be pretty correct to exclude or separate all deaths during an induced delivery/abortion of a nonviable pregnancy when the body itself fails to go into labor to pass the dying/dead fetus even when it ought.

I expect the statistics would look quite different, but I doubt there is enough of a population to really measure there, when it comes to third trimester abortions. Also, how would you possibly ethically collect information for women forced to carry those nonviable pregnancies to term or stillbirth?

What is the death rate for women forced to carry a dead corpse in their body which it does not eject? What is the death rate for women whose babies are essentially a giant toxic tumor growth slowly killing them?

I honestly don't ever want to find out.

I hope that data cannot ever be collected.

It will be collected in "The Southern US and beyond" quite soon, I imagine.

 

[thebeave]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Yes. But no one is arguing that someone must take that risk.

There are ony two choices. If the baby is unwanted, and its 3rd trimester you can abort or carry to term. You must assume one of these two risks, regardless.

From my brief search, the risks are not that far apart. They are within the same order of magnitude.

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023

So, its apparently safer to the mother to give birth, than have a 3rd trimester abortion.

The problem here: third trimester abortions happen when things are abnormal.

Full term births happen when things are normal.

There is absolutely going to be a selection bias because the risk pools aren't even the same beforehand.

You could have asked someone more statistics-literate but you didn't.

You would have to control the initial selection population by the exact disorders/conditions and situations that occurred specifically in the pool of 3rd trimester abortions.

You're comparing situations that have already gone sideways in some way to a population almost exclusively populated by nominal situations. Of course the situations that were so sideways they required an abortion were more fatal on average... And third trimester abortions simply do not happen with healthy fetuses, let alone in high enough numbers to compare the control group.

You're literally comparing ectopic and stillbirth pregnancies to healthy ones capturing the inevitable deaths from an already horrific situation along with the avoidable ones.

But, the discussion here and now is focused on elective third trimester abortions, when both mother and fetus/baby are healthy. If the fetus is abnormal, I don't think Emily, myself or anyone else here is insisting it be carried to term.

 

[Jarhyn]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

Aren't there risks in aborttions as well? Particularly, 3rd term?

Yes. But no one is arguing that someone must take that risk.

There are ony two choices. If the baby is unwanted, and its 3rd trimester you can abort or carry to term. You must assume one of these two risks, regardless.

From my brief search, the risks are not that far apart. They are within the same order of magnitude.

Maternal mortality in 3rd trimester abortions: 77 per 100,00 in 2023
Maternal mortality from giving birth at full term: 19 per 100,00 in 2023

So, its apparently safer to the mother to give birth, than have a 3rd trimester abortion.

The problem here: third trimester abortions happen when things are abnormal.

Full term births happen when things are normal.

There is absolutely going to be a selection bias because the risk pools aren't even the same beforehand.

You could have asked someone more statistics-literate but you didn't.

You would have to control the initial selection population by the exact disorders/conditions and situations that occurred specifically in the pool of 3rd trimester abortions.

You're comparing situations that have already gone sideways in some way to a population almost exclusively populated by nominal situations. Of course the situations that were so sideways they required an abortion were more fatal on average... And third trimester abortions simply do not happen with healthy fetuses, let alone in high enough numbers to compare the control group.

You're literally comparing ectopic and stillbirth pregnancies to healthy ones capturing the inevitable deaths from an already horrific situation along with the avoidable ones.

But, the discussion here and now is focused on elective third trimester abortions, when both mother and fetus/baby are healthy. If the fetus is abnormal, I don't think Emily, myself or anyone else here is insisting it be carried to term.

You didn't offer statistics about "elective" third trimester abortions. You offered statistics about ALL third trimester abortions.

 

[Elixir]

the discussion here and now is focused on elective third trimester abortions

Where is the data?
^sincere question.

I have been asking ad nauseum and all I get is statements about the “reprehensibility” of aborting healthy viable fetuses. As if it happens all the time except where late term abortions are restricted or prohibited.

Let’s see the data so we can make INFORMED decisions about the harms vs benefits of laws.
What’s the harm in that?

The only explanations for the total lack of data that can think of, is that either they are almost never reported, and/or that it almost never happens.
Yeah, it’s plenty reprehensible if it does. That isn’t the question.

 

[Jarhyn]

the discussion here and now is focused on elective third trimester abortions

Where is the data?
^sincere question.

I have been asking ad nauseum and all I get is statements about the “reprehensibility” of aborting healthy viable fetuses. As if it happens all the time except where late term abortions are restricted or prohibited.

Let’s see the data so we can make INFORMED decisions about the harms vs benefits of laws.
What’s the harm in that?

The only explanations for the total lack of data that can think of, is that either they are almost never reported, and/or that it almost never happens.
Yeah, it’s plenty reprehensible if it does. That isn’t the question.

*is offered box labeled "data that supports this claim"*

*Looks in box; finds cherry picked data and biased studies widely rejected by the scientific community, or with conclusions opposite to their offered conclusions*

Every. Goddamn. Time.

 

[Elixir]

You didn't offer statistics about "elective" third trimester abortions. You offered statistics about ALL third trimester abortions.

I have looked around some, and found it so hard to find stats for “elective third trimester abortions”, it makes me suspect that there are no such stats.
If that’s the case, the question is why.
Is it because there is a libtard conspiracy to hide an epidemic of crazy pregnant people using corrupt doctors to abort viable fetuses?
Or maybe it’s because it simply doesn’t happen often enough to form ANY statistical picture of its frequency.

I’m open either way if there’s evidence, but for the moment my provisional conclusion is that it’s a red herring excuse to keep cops and politicians involved in reproductive health care.

 

[Emily Lake]

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me. Killing a health baby who presents no known risk to the mother …

There is no such thing. All deliveries pose known risks. The risks may be small, but they are known to be possible.

This is a silly and pedantic argument. Waking up in the morning poses risks in the way you're presenting this. It's absurd to insist on this approach, when the vast majority of deliveries got without a hitch, and of those that have hitches of any sort, an infinitesimal number of them result in the mother's death.

 

[Emily Lake]

The person whose behavior you seek to constrain isn’t just rare, they’re virtually nonexistent. Yet abortion laws cause pain and suffering and even death, and that’s an inevitable cost of legislating reproductive healthcare.

If the laws I propose only impact a virtually nonexistent number of people, why are you so dead set against them?

I’m sure the cost in Europe is much lower, more like the US under RvW.

The laws in Europe are CONSISTENTLY AND UNIVERSALLY stricter than RvW, and what I've proposed. So... again, why are you so dead set against me?

 

[Emily Lake]

But since it's unacceptable to you to limit abortions for viable fetuses, then make it not a fetus - make it a baby. Induce delivery and remove it from the mother. Now it's an independent human. Problem solved. If mom decides in the third trimester that she doesn't want to have a baby, she doesn't have to be responsible for that baby - she can deliver it prematurely and let medical staff deal with its life and place it for adoption.

Any procedure in the third trimester is likely to be invasive. But your nonchalant take of, "induce delivery and remove it from the mother" sounds like you aren't exactly appreciating that process too much.

Does the idea of the state inducing delivery not sound reprehensible to you? I'm not very familiar with birthing, but part of me thinks that it isn't unreasonable to suggest inducing birth before the body is ready to make with the birthing process comes with greater risk to both parties.

It absolutely sounds reprehensible to me.

So we are in agreement that the state forcing inducement of birth in a woman is reprehensible.

What I don't understand is why you are supporting the state forcing inducement of birth in a woman. The argument of personhood seems off as the woman is absolutely, without doubt, a person. And you aren't particularly caring about that woman or her health or her well being.

Oh sure, providing an explicit and clear avenue to termination if the woman's life or health is endangered is totally synonymous with not caring about her. Makes perfect sense, yeparooni.

Put that woman in a locker room and you'll bellow till the cows come how about her well being and rights to be protected from dangling bits of a transgender person in the same locker room.

I can hold the view that healthy women with healthy third trimester fetuses don't get to murder babies at a whim while also holding the view that males don't get to override female consent and boundaries.

But put her in a hospital and all of a sudden, she is a villain. who deserves to have the state intervene in her uterus, forcing her, with medication, to give birth..

Perhaps you might consider actually reading what I've proposed. A doctor who performs a third-trimester abortion without medically necessary indications, and whose records are audited, would face punitive measures.

 

[Elixir]

The person whose behavior you seek to constrain isn’t just rare, they’re virtually nonexistent. Yet abortion laws cause pain and suffering and even death, and that’s an inevitable cost of legislating reproductive healthcare.

If the laws I propose only impact a virtually nonexistent number of people, why are you so dead set against them?

I didn't say the laws didn't IMPACT anyone.
I said they didn't BENEFIT anyone, or PREVENT any countable number of instances of frivolous, insanity-driven late term abortions of viable fetuses.
They definitely play a role in preventable deaths in hospital parking lots.
I'd say that's an impact.

You cannot seem to understand the most basic things, Emily.
Or you are so desperate to rationalize your "position" that you now resort to outright misconstruction.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody here has taken the extreme position that a zygote is a person from day one - we all recognize that as an extreme and irrational position.

“We” do??
What changes between conception and week 20-whatever that is your magic “bar of personhood”?

75% likelihood to survive outside the womb at 27 weeks, versus virtually no likelihood to survive prior to 24 weeks, and pretty much 0% likelihood to survive prior to 20 weeks.