Roe v Wade is on deck

[laughing dog]

I think that the term elective is used appropriately for medical purposes by the medical community. Abortions are either natural ( what we call miscarriage) or scheduled.

My sister got knocked up by a dumbass. They were using the "rhythm method". She called an abortion clinic and two hours later left the clinic pregnancy free. He, she, and the baby were all healthy. The parents killed their baby because they didn't want to be responsible for a child.
But the abortion was not scheduled, she just walked in, he paid, and it was over. It was an elective abortion. As opposed to my mom's, where a medical disaster was dealt with the next day. But by medical jargon standards that was the elective abortion, but my sister's was not.
Tom

No. Your sister’s abortion was an elective abortion under medical terminology. It wasn’t an emergency.

 

[TomC]

I think that the term elective is used appropriately for medical purposes by the medical community. Abortions are either natural ( what we call miscarriage) or scheduled.

My sister got knocked up by a dumbass. They were using the "rhythm method". She called an abortion clinic and two hours later left the clinic pregnancy free. He, she, and the baby were all healthy. The parents killed their baby because they didn't want to be responsible for a child.
But the abortion was not scheduled, she just walked in, he paid, and it was over. It was an elective abortion. As opposed to my mom's, where a medical disaster was dealt with the next day. But by medical jargon standards that was the elective abortion, but my sister's was not.
Tom

No. Your sister’s abortion was an elective abortion under medical terminology. It wasn’t an emergency.

No, not according to someone on this thread. Her abortion was not scheduled, therefore it was not elective.
I think that the medical jargon is important to medicos, but it is not the vernacular that most of us use.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I think that the term elective is used appropriately for medical purposes by the medical community. Abortions are either natural ( what we call miscarriage) or scheduled.

My sister got knocked up by a dumbass. They were using the "rhythm method". She called an abortion clinic and two hours later left the clinic pregnancy free. He, she, and the baby were all healthy. The parents killed their baby because they didn't want to be responsible for a child.
But the abortion was not scheduled, she just walked in, he paid, and it was over. It was an elective abortion. As opposed to my mom's, where a medical disaster was dealt with the next day. But by medical jargon standards that was the elective abortion, but my sister's was not.
Tom

No. Your sister’s abortion was an elective abortion under medical terminology. It wasn’t an emergency.

No, not according to someone on this thread. Her abortion was not scheduled, therefore it was not elective.
I think that the medical jargon is important to medicos, but it is not the vernacular that most of us use.
Tom

True. Which is why people need to be aware of the meaning. As you pointed out in an earlier post, Gov Abbott of Texas is using the medical terminology for demagogic purposes.

 

[Toni]

I think that the term elective is used appropriately for medical purposes by the medical community. Abortions are either natural ( what we call miscarriage) or scheduled.

My sister got knocked up by a dumbass. They were using the "rhythm method". She called an abortion clinic and two hours later left the clinic pregnancy free. He, she, and the baby were all healthy. The parents killed their baby because they didn't want to be responsible for a child.
But the abortion was not scheduled, she just walked in, he paid, and it was over. It was an elective abortion. As opposed to my mom's, where a medical disaster was dealt with the next day. But by medical jargon standards that was the elective abortion, but my sister's was not.
Tom

No. Your sister’s abortion was an elective abortion under medical terminology. It wasn’t an emergency.

No, not according to someone on this thread. Her abortion was not scheduled, therefore it was not elective.
I think that the medical jargon is important to medicos, but it is not the vernacular that most of us use.
Tom

I use the medical terminology when I am in a serious discussion about medical issues. Abortion is a medical issue.

I will admit that I use medical terminology because it is something I am comfortable with using and also because precision is important when talking about medical issues, particularly when mixed with politics as unfortunately, abortion has become. Just as birth control for women has a lot of political aspects to it, unlike birth control for men. Women have long been asked if their husbands approve of their use of birth control pills, IUDs and in the past, were required to have their husband's written approval for a tubal ligation. Even today, usually tubal ligations are not performed until a woman is in her 30's and preferably after she has had one pregnancy resulting in a live birth.

Men have always been allowed to have whatever medical procedures they like, no matter how their wives or mothers or girlfriends feel about it.

Politics makes use of many mythologies about women and women's bodies and weaves it in with a lot of religiousity, in order to exert political control over women.

Language matters.

No one cares what you terms you use when talking with your friends.

 

[Toni]

I think that the term elective is used appropriately for medical purposes by the medical community. Abortions are either natural ( what we call miscarriage) or scheduled.

My sister got knocked up by a dumbass. They were using the "rhythm method". She called an abortion clinic and two hours later left the clinic pregnancy free. He, she, and the baby were all healthy. The parents killed their baby because they didn't want to be responsible for a child.
But the abortion was not scheduled, she just walked in, he paid, and it was over. It was an elective abortion. As opposed to my mom's, where a medical disaster was dealt with the next day. But by medical jargon standards that was the elective abortion, but my sister's was not.
Tom

No. Your sister’s abortion was an elective abortion under medical terminology. It wasn’t an emergency.

No, not according to someone on this thread. Her abortion was not scheduled, therefore it was not elective.
I think that the medical jargon is important to medicos, but it is not the vernacular that most of us use.
Tom

Sigh: The abortion for Tom's sister was scheduled--it was just scheduled in a very short time frame. She was not experiencing a medical emergency. She went to the clinic, I assume having made an appointment ahead of time and scheduled an appointment for an abortion. So, it was elective in medical terms.

I am familiar with Tom's opposition and emotional response to terminating pregnancies except to save the mother's life. While his emotions and his feelings are valid, they have no bearing on medical terminology or, thankfully, on the laws and policies governing health care. I do ot mean to sound unsympathetic. I realize that it is a difficult issue for many people.

 

[TomC]

I am familiar with Tom's opposition and emotional response to terminating pregnancies except to save the mother's life.

You're quite wrong about this.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I am familiar with Tom's opposition and emotional response to terminating pregnancies except to save the mother's life.

You're quite wrong about this.
Tom

I apologize then for misremembering previous discussions about abortion.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can you please PM me your dictionary, so I can better understand the meaning of the words you have arbitrarily decided to redefine?

All this squabbling over the definition of "elective" is in service of shedding heat instead of light. It doesn't matter which procedures are labeled "elective" -- a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Oh sure... how we word something has absolutely no impact on how people perceive things. That is why sodas went from Diet to Zero to get men to drink it. Or, let's look at the historical issue with gay marriage and how the question was worded impacted the response.

Sodas didn't "go" from Diet to Zero. A new product was offered, deliberately engineered to taste more like a sugary soda than a traditional diet soda did, to get people to drink it who didn't like how diet sodas taste. It has a different name so people will be able to buy the one they want.

As for gay marriage, in the first place, the two polls were by two different organizations with different sampling methods, so it's not clear the difference in question wording is even what made the difference. And in the second place, you're taking for granted that the two questions actually mean the same thing. They don't. "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally" isn't at all equivalent to "it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married". They have completely different implications for what should happen to any people who try it. If they can't marry legally it implies when they've done it they still don't have a legal marriage. But if it's illegal for them to marry it implies when they've done it they can be fined or jailed. So of course any respondents who don't want the state to recognize gay marriages but don't want gays punished for it are going to give different answers.

Doesn't look like an elephant to me. Emily says she wants abortion rights as protected under Roe v Wade and wants to have protocols for third trimester procedures. Protocols that will interfere with access to needed health care. Because random last second... oh for no reason in general... abortions happen.

I.e., you intend to go right on strawmanning your opponents. Where the bejesus did any RvW supporter claim the medically unnecessary late-term abortions he or she opposes are random last second and for no reason in general? Of course the women obtaining those abortions have put a lot of thought into it and have serious substantive reasons for getting them. Thinking somebody's reason isn't good enough is not the same as thinking she has no reason.

Yes, they probably do happen. They also probably don't occur enough to warrant interfering with a woman who needs desperate health care, not physicians calling the hospital lawyers.

Thank you. That is a substantive argument. Do that, instead of peddling misleading distractions about "elective".

The term "elective" is very much used to provide the illusion that these procedures to save the life of the woman are merely a choice. You might want to give it a rest, but it is used negatively like that.

Quote someone on this board using it that way. If some stupid Republican politician uses it that way, so what? Throwing that in the face of anyone here is just more strawmanning.

 

[Jarhyn]

Quote someone on this board using it that way.

<Deleted by moderator> we literally have Emily IN THIS THREAD talking about easy availability of "abortion-on-demand", which is a concept that only really comes up adjacent to the misinterpretation of "elective"; "on-demand" third trimester abortions don't happen because doctors refuse to do them. And no I won't quote it, you can damn well just use the search term to see the fucking conversation yourself, just like I won't quote Google results to fools.

And I'll point out, preemptively, that any pretending that this isn't what is being referenced with "on-demand" abortion claims is a lying liar.

Literally the only "evidence" to hold up for "on-demand" third trimester abortions is the "misinterpreting 'elective'" propaganda, and so your dishonesty ends up on display.

Of course, while you admit to there being substantive arguments against your position, let's just wait to see how long you forget that your position has been substantively rebutted.

 

[Elixir]

Let me know when you realize that the vernacular is what most of us mean by words.

Then say “words”. It’s shorter, more concise and less likely to be misunderstood. Saying vernacular constrains the meaning of words to their “common” or “conversational” use, which can vary from the same word in medical jargon/context. That’s what makes it a great tool of deception. Say “elective” and people think you mean you can take it or leave it without meaningful consequence. So an elective abortion can be vilified.

When I was a student there were mandatory subjects and elective subjects. What does that have to do with medical jargon?

You’re starting to figure it out. More people are familiar with schoolyard contexts than professional medical contexts. Therein lies the abortion-opposing right wing’s power to confuse people into voting against their own interest.
Well-meaning, poorly educated people (aka most people) will eagerly vote to ban elective abortions, because they think it means “optional”. Which is STUPID, INHUMANE, and masquerades as caring about fetuses, when in fact it’s a simple device for controlling other people’s (women’s) bodies.

 

[Toni]

Can you please PM me your dictionary, so I can better understand the meaning of the words you have arbitrarily decided to redefine?

All this squabbling over the definition of "elective" is in service of shedding heat instead of light. It doesn't matter which procedures are labeled "elective" -- a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Oh sure... how we word something has absolutely no impact on how people perceive things. That is why sodas went from Diet to Zero to get men to drink it. Or, let's look at the historical issue with gay marriage and how the question was worded impacted the response.

Sodas didn't "go" from Diet to Zero. A new product was offered, deliberately engineered to taste more like a sugary soda than a traditional diet soda did, to get people to drink it who didn't like how diet sodas taste. It has a different name so people will be able to buy the one they want.

As for gay marriage, in the first place, the two polls were by two different organizations with different sampling methods, so it's not clear the difference in question wording is even what made the difference. And in the second place, you're taking for granted that the two questions actually mean the same thing. They don't. "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally" isn't at all equivalent to "it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married". They have completely different implications for what should happen to any people who try it. If they can't marry legally it implies when they've done it they still don't have a legal marriage. But if it's illegal for them to marry it implies when they've done it they can be fined or jailed. So of course any respondents who don't want the state to recognize gay marriages but don't want gays punished for it are going to give different answers.

Doesn't look like an elephant to me. Emily says she wants abortion rights as protected under Roe v Wade and wants to have protocols for third trimester procedures. Protocols that will interfere with access to needed health care. Because random last second... oh for no reason in general... abortions happen.

I.e., you intend to go right on strawmanning your opponents. Where the bejesus did any RvW supporter claim the medically unnecessary late-term abortions he or she opposes are random last second and for no reason in general? Of course the women obtaining those abortions have put a lot of thought into it and have serious substantive reasons for getting them. Thinking somebody's reason isn't good enough is not the same as thinking she has no reason.

Yes, they probably do happen. They also probably don't occur enough to warrant interfering with a woman who needs desperate health care, not physicians calling the hospital lawyers.

Thank you. That is a substantive argument. Do that, instead of peddling misleading distractions about "elective".

The term "elective" is very much used to provide the illusion that these procedures to save the life of the woman are merely a choice. You might want to give it a rest, but it is used negatively like that.

Quote someone on this board using it that way. If some stupid Republican politician uses it that way, so what? Throwing that in the face of anyone here is just more strawmanning.

I don’t agree. The term ‘elective’ as used by some of the general public and some politicians is used exactly to garner support for non-emergency pregnancies.

See TomC’s post upthread about his duster’s abortion. He states that his sister, the father of the baby and the baby were all healthy and they chose abortion because they did t want to be responsible for a baby.

Note the use of the word baby. I am almost certain that at the time of the termination, the embryo or fetus( depending on how far along the pregnancy was) was quite small, probably at most 2 inches and just beginning to develop features that we would see as human. However, if we compared a fetus or embryo to an embryo if another mammal or even a fetus of a reptile, they appear very similar and to an untrained person, they appear nearly indistinguishable. But TomC refers to the baby. Which is understandable because he would have only met the fetus after it was born. That’s what is visualized when we think about a growing human embryo or fetus. However, about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or natural abortion during the first trimester. Often without the woman even knowing that she was pregnant. This is most often due to fetal abnormalities incompatible with further development or sometimes, an illness in the woman. Of course pregnancies end in miscarriage at later stages of pregnancy development. When this happens too early fur viability, we call it a miscarriage. If it happens late enough for the fetus to potentially risky survive, we call it pre-term labor and say that the baby is premature.

Words like elective and baby are used familiarly but also by politicians to create emotional outrage and judgement against the woman or girl who decides she cannot continue the pregnancy for whatever reason.

My apologies to TomC for using his post as an example to show how often word choices made conjure up emotional reactions.

The truth is that every day people choose to get pregnant, and to continue a pregnancy for reasons that I would not agree with, just as sometimes they choose to terminate a pregnancy for reasons I would disagree with. They also decide to enter or end relationships, take or leave jobs, buy or sell houses or cars for reasons I or you might disagree with. But it is their choice and not mine or yours.

We all have a right to our opinions and values but none of us have a right to force anyone else to use our opinions as a substitute for their own judgement.

 

[TomC]

My apologies to TomC for using his post as an example to show how often word choices made conjure up emotional reactions.

Not at all. My examples were intended to illustrate why it's important to be clear about which meaning of words is intended.

It's especially important when discussing such a hot button issue. The statistics used to support the anti abortion position are doubtless from medical establishments which uses a different meaning from the vast majority of people.

Honestly, I had no idea that in medical jargon the word "elective" had such a different meaning from the vernacular.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I had no idea that in medical jargon the word "elective" had such a different meaning from the vernacular.

Neither do most victims of the right wing deception marketed as opposition to elective abortions.
THATS THE FUCKING POINT, TOM.

 

[TomC]

I had no idea that in medical jargon the word "elective" had such a different meaning from the vernacular.

Neither do most victims of the right wing deception marketed as opposition to elective abortions.
THATS THE FUCKING POINT, TOM.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
That's the point I have been trying to make. I used anecdotes from my family to make exactly that point.
Tom

 

[Toni]

My apologies to TomC for using his post as an example to show how often word choices made conjure up emotional reactions.

Not at all. My examples were intended to illustrate why it's important to be clear about which meaning of words is intended.

It's especially important when discussing such a hot button issue. The statistics used to support the anti abortion position are doubtless from medical establishments which uses a different meaning from the vast majority of people.

Honestly, I had no idea that in medical jargon the word "elective" had such a different meaning from the vernacular.
Tom

I’m glad I did not upset or offend you.

I remember being a bit upset when I saw on my hospital bills after my child was born the words elective c-section. It was my choice in that I agreed to it but when they start talking about potential for brain damage for the baby, a c-section seemed pretty mandatory to me.

 

[Bomb#20]

...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

The author interviewed 28 women who had obtained late-term abortions and she reported their reasons. Developmental defects were the most common reason, certainly, but not the only reason. Some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because of difficulty raising the money for it or because of other obstacles our society put in their paths; and, perhaps surprisingly, some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because they didn't know they were pregnant.
...

I was expecting this to be the same research that Emily previously linked that I said didn't feel like proper research. Nope, this isn't that study--or is it? Methodology sounds just like the other one (really, now, your best way of finding information is interviewing people you don't even have evidence actually had an abortion? They start out with distributing fliers to women who got an abortion, but also then distributed them by many other channels), this one is devoid of any sort of table and feels even fishier than the previous one.

Also, digging to see what I could learn I find the organization that provided the grant was funded by Buffet. But the year this was published is the last year that group operated. Buffet isn't funding them anymore.

And once again the Loren unfalsifiability engine shifts into high gear.

Why do I find this whole saga extremely suspect?

Easy-peasy: because someone in a position to know of what she speaks said something that conflicts with your premises and therefore must have been lying.

 

[Jarhyn]

...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

The author interviewed 28 women who had obtained late-term abortions and she reported their reasons. Developmental defects were the most common reason, certainly, but not the only reason. Some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because of difficulty raising the money for it or because of other obstacles our society put in their paths; and, perhaps surprisingly, some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because they didn't know they were pregnant.
...

I was expecting this to be the same research that Emily previously linked that I said didn't feel like proper research. Nope, this isn't that study--or is it? Methodology sounds just like the other one (really, now, your best way of finding information is interviewing people you don't even have evidence actually had an abortion? They start out with distributing fliers to women who got an abortion, but also then distributed them by many other channels), this one is devoid of any sort of table and feels even fishier than the previous one.

Also, digging to see what I could learn I find the organization that provided the grant was funded by Buffet. But the year this was published is the last year that group operated. Buffet isn't funding them anymore.

And once again the Loren unfalsifiability engine shifts into high gear.

Why do I find this whole saga extremely suspect?

Easy-peasy: because someone in a position to know of what she speaks said something that conflicts with your premises and therefore must have been lying.

"Waah, I was called out for presenting shitty, indefensible junk studies, how dare, obviously my weak studies are good, you're just biased!!!!1111"

He called you out. He found the clear flaws in biased, fake research. Cry more.

 

[Toni]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

Abolishing words does not work the way intended.

I just prefer that people learn something about what a term means before getting upset about its use.
In general, I just think people need to learn more.

 

[Jarhyn]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

Abolishing words does not work the way intended.

I just prefer that people learn something about what a term means before getting upset about its use.
In general, I just think people need to learn more.

In some respects, I would kind of like to see some kind of consequence for a politician repeating a conflation/equivocation like this.

Like, a politician says "it's elective, it's on-demand" and the medical professional says "well actually...", and then the politician gets punched in the face the next time they repeat it.

 

[Toni]

Loren and some others have been systematically misrepresenting Emily and some others as believing medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen as a result of hearing about elective late-term abortions and misunderstanding the word "elective", thinking it means "medically unnecessary". That is fractally wrong. You can't prove something doesn't happen by making up a stupid reason to think it happens and imputing that reason to your opponent. Even if Emily really believed in them for that stupid a reason it would not be evidence against them; moreover, she does not. Emily and some others believe medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen because they happen.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

The author interviewed 28 women who had obtained late-term abortions and she reported their reasons. Developmental defects were the most common reason, certainly, but not the only reason. Some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because of difficulty raising the money for it or because of other obstacles our society put in their paths; and, perhaps surprisingly, some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because they didn't know they were pregnant.

So let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I was expecting this to be the same research that Emily previously linked that I said didn't feel like proper research. Nope, this isn't that study--or is it? Methodology sounds just like the other one (really, now, your best way of finding information is interviewing people you don't even have evidence actually had an abortion? They start out with distributing fliers to women who got an abortion, but also then distributed them by many other channels), this one is devoid of any sort of table and feels even fishier than the previous one.

Also, digging to see what I could learn I find the organization that provided the grant was funded by Buffet. But the year this was published is the last year that group operated. Buffet isn't funding them anymore.

Why do I find this whole saga extremely suspect?

Because it's extremely suspicious.

Most right-wing "research" ends up being shaped like this, designed to reach conclusions rather than being designed to reach the truth.

I didn't find it to be suspicious at all. The narratives of the women interviewed are consistent with the experiences of women I have known. A pregnancy discovered past the 3 month is not at all uncommon. It is less common but not that unusual for someone to discover a pregnancy late in the second trimester or early in the third trimester. I knew someone who took her friend to the ER, both believing she had appendicitis but nope, she had a healthy, full term baby boy, without ever having suspected she was pregnant. While this seems unbelievable, apparently it's not as uncommon as one would think: there was actually a television show about women giving birth when they had not known they wer pregnant. BTW, this can be extremely dangerous, life threatening to the woman/girl and the baby.

Sometimes, abnormalities in the fetus are not discovered until late. Sometimes serious, even life threatening medical issues are not observed prior to or until late in the pregnancy. Sometimes, a maternal medical complication develops during the pregnancy and continuing the pregnancy exacerbates the medical complication, making continuing the pregnancy very dangerous.

I understand that most men want to believe that all women are thrilled to learn that they are pregnant and that only bad women are not happy about a pregnancy. But people become pregnant in very difficult circumstances, including homelessness, periods of extreme economic hardship, of personal hardship, and for many reasons. Women discover they are pregnant after t hey were raped, or after a relationship ended or after their partner dies. Women discover they are pregnant soon after they get a job they desperately need and one that is not necessarily compatible with pregnancy.

I've known women in each of these circumstances. I've been the woman in a couple of those circumstances. In my case, I was fortunate that I was able to garner enough resources to be able to successfully carry a pregnancy that had been unplanned and frankly was under less than great economic conditions. I knew at the time then and I know even more now how fortunate I was. And how many women are not nearly as fortunate as I was and am.

It's really......something else to read comments of men who have never experienced pregnancy and who have never had a partner who was pregnant or thought she was pregnant.