Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's the thing. The problem with RvW is it causes collateral damage.

Isn't that something. When I think of RvW, I think about a woman in a doctor's office, ie the only two people in the room, not "collateral damage".

Face your own collateral damage squarely.

I don't consider a woman speaking with her doctor about her seeing to her health care as "collateral damage".

Sorry, I thought the collateral damage I was talking about was clear from context, but apparently not. This isn't a debate about normal early-term abortion between the embryos-are-people crowd and the sane. It's a debate between those who think RvW got it about right and those who favor abortion on demand even in the third trimester.

This thread has been all over the road on the abortion subject, so you restricting the conversation to just third trimester, it'd be helpful to note likewise.

The collateral damage from RvW I'm talking about is the damage people have repeatedly brought up upthread: the expectation that authorizing states to prohibit third-trimester abortions that aren't medically indicated will inevitably lead to some red states abusing that authority to make it difficult or impossible for some of the women in those states to obtain medically indicated abortions.

Yeah, that wasn't remotely apparent in my reading of your post. Nor re-reading of it. And nor should I, as that isn't collateral damage from Roe v Wade.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think the first thing that should happen is the hospital admits her as a patient in the Emergency Room and starts running tests because Jeezy Creeezy, something is very wrong here! Is she on drugs? Did she eat the wrong kind of mushrooms, is she suffering from hypoxia, is she severely sleep deprived and hallucinating, does she have an undiagnosed mental illness, or a brain tumor, or what? The wrong thing to do is presume she's simply an evil person looking for an evil doctor to be her accomplice in a premeditated murder. And the utterly unconscionable thing to do is to send her away with no one to help her through what is clearly a crisis.

On what possible basis do you assume that I disagree with this?

On the basis that every time I've seen you post about pregnant women showing up in hospitals wanting abortions you always present it as healthy, sane women planning to murder babies and demanding doctors be their accomplices, not as frightened, desperately ill persons seeking help.

I haven't seen you propose any of the steps I suggested, or anything like them.

I'm going to quote Elixir from back in May:

I am not, and have never been, opposed to abortion being legal.

I know that Emily. You’re not opposed to abortion being legal as long as it is subjected to a second opinion. In advance. That is neither bodily autonomy nor personal freedom IMHO.

And that “position” was moderated from something that reeked even more strongly of authoritarianism, as it originally involved politicians.
At least that is what I have gotten from what you have said.

“I’m so misunderstood!” Is the wailing lament of one cannot succinctly explain themself.

If you clearly state the difference between what you really mean and what I (and a “couple of my extremist friends”) have gleaned from your posts, we can discuss it. Telling me I’m wrong, and endlessly re-phrasing that assertion doesn’t tell me what’s right. If you cannot do that, it’s pretty pointless to try to discuss with you.

If we're not understanding your point, explain it to us again. You might have to get really, really wordy. Just be as specific as you can.

What are you proposing should be the approach doctors and other health care providers take when a 25 weeks pregnant woman is developing complications? What laws or regulations or guidelines do you think would be most helpful in ensuring the best possible outcomes for the woman and her fetus? Do you agree that stringent laws would act as impediments to best medical practices, or do you think laws can be both strict and formulated in ways that ensure patients get proper medical care without delay?

For the 500th time:

I support and advocate for a return to the same guidelines used under RvW, but as an actual law created by congress.

That means complete access to abortion during the first two trimesters with no question or hoops or barriers, solely at the discretion of the woman. For pregnancy in the third trimester, abortion is limited to medical necessity, when the life of the mother is endangered or when the fetus has an identified severe disorder. That means abortion would be prohibited in the third trimester if both the mother and baby are healthy.

On the other hand, there are some posters here who quite openly have said a woman should be allowed to abort a completely healthy baby two days before delivery, when there is no risk to the mother, at her sole discretion.

I bring up healthy mothers and babies because that is what OTHER PEOPLE support.

If it never happens, and no doctor would ever do it… then there should be no o section to a law that prohibits people from doing something that nobody is doing, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

LD has stated that he supports a women deciding to abort three days prior to delivery for any reason. I respect that he has that opinion, but I very strongly disagree with it. At that point, I can't see an rational way in which it's not murder. There's a very broad range of gestation where it's gray, and I'm very happy to discuss where the optimal place to draw that line might be. I can be somewhat flexible on what specific stage of gestation should be chosen as the limit, and I'd prefer to err on the somewhat later end. But I'm not willing to pretend it's okay to kill a baby two weeks before delivery without a very solid medical reason to do so.

"Don't kill babies" seems like something that shouldn't have to be said.

What you don't understand is that this isn't actually the issue. I would be very surprised if he actually thought an abortion three days before birth was acceptable. Rather, we are looking at the failure modes. Leaving it up to the doctors--we have that "research" you cited, but it doesn't feel like proper scientific research. We have no credible reports of third trimester abortions other than due to defects. On the flip side we have already seen multiple women die because they could read between the lines and understood that was the intended outcome--they would be punished for doing the medically correct thing.

As evidenced by the hordes of women afraid to get needed medical care in the third trimester when RvW was in place? I’m sure you can show credible evidence that lots of women could read between the lines of RvW, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

That argument is based entirely on the notion that women can't be trusted to make good choices so choice must be preemptively taken from them.

Authoritarians use arguments like Emily’s to justify imposing their own preferences on others. Not by ensuring that the person or people most qualified and/or most invested in the decisions to be made, are empowered to make decisions about maternal or fetal healthcare, but by ensuring that individuals are NOT vested with the power to control their own bodies. They prefer to appoint third parties to wield decision making powers, ensuring that the decisions made are consistent with the “values” of that authority rather than those of the individual who is effected.
That’s what makes them authoritarians. Inferring and conferring “personhood” upon fetuses is not an empathic urge, it’s the indulgence of a dominance impulse.

Oh FFS, your disinformation is tiresome. I LITERALLY want it to be a medical decision, based on maternal and fetal health care. The "third party" I want involved is LITERALLY the doctor.

So somehow, the thing I actually want is transformed into the thing I'm trying to get rid of? How wrapped up in your own fantasy do you have to be to type this out and think you're making sense?

No, you want it to be a "medical" decision with politicians allowed to second guess them.

No I don’t. You’re a mod, you should know better than to make false statements like this.

 

[Jarhyn]

That argument is based entirely on the notion that women can't be trusted to make good choices so choice must be preemptively taken from them.

Authoritarians use arguments like Emily’s to justify imposing their own preferences on others. Not by ensuring that the person or people most qualified and/or most invested in the decisions to be made, are empowered to make decisions about maternal or fetal healthcare, but by ensuring that individuals are NOT vested with the power to control their own bodies. They prefer to appoint third parties to wield decision making powers, ensuring that the decisions made are consistent with the “values” of that authority rather than those of the individual who is effected.
That’s what makes them authoritarians. Inferring and conferring “personhood” upon fetuses is not an empathic urge, it’s the indulgence of a dominance impulse.

Oh FFS, your disinformation is tiresome. I LITERALLY want it to be a medical decision, based on maternal and fetal health care. The "third party" I want involved is LITERALLY the doctor.

So somehow, the thing I actually want is transformed into the thing I'm trying to get rid of? How wrapped up in your own fantasy do you have to be to type this out and think you're making sense?

No, you want it to be a "medical" decision with politicians allowed to second guess them.

No I don’t. You’re a mod, you should know better than to make false statements like this.

Yes you do.

As has been discussed, literally every pathway to enforcing a legal restriction against what you falsely consider "on-demand" abortion inserts the influence of people whose second guesses are both expected and dreaded, as a clock ticks down to a pregnant person's inevitable death.

There is a strict binary here: women and doctors are trusted to make the right decisions given organizational standards of care under non-governmental medical board control, or politicians and police and second-guessing come into play.

This is black-and-white. Few things in the world are so black-and-white as this.

If it isn't seen as a place where government intrusion is unacceptable, government intrusion and second-guessing politicians happen. Consequences against doctors more significant than medical review will happen. Witch hunts will happen (as if people haven't already been processed, harassed, and even lynched for performing abortions already).

Adding another group of people who have to make guesses is forcing "second guesses", and tautologically so.

 

[Emily Lake]

[

To make things even more politically charged in these dark times: in medical parlance, a miscarriage is called an abortion.

In medical parlance, abortion simply means removal of a non-living fetus from a womb without delivery. When this happens with no external intervention, it’s a miscarriage. When it happens with intervention, it’s a termination of pregnancy. The language used in many medical policies is “medically unnecessary termination of pregnancy” or similar.

 

[Emily Lake]

To make things even more politically charged in these dark times: in medical parlance, a miscarriage is called an abortion.

… and historically criminalized as such by various civilizations

Induced abortions were tolerated by many cultures and societies, and considered women’s business.

Early in the pregnancy, yes. Late in the pregnancy , no.

 

[Emily Lake]

But if people had to admit their understanding was comically naive, how could they possibly push an agenda?

What agenda do you think that I'm pushing.
Tom

It's interesting you maneuvered your way between the comment and it's actual target...

Maybe your harassment annoys other people than just me?

 

[Emily Lake]

The Missouri Supreme Court has struck down several anti abortion laws passed after a public referendum placing abortion rights into the state constitution. Planned Parenthood stated they will resume prescribing abortion medication pills.

Good.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

In the event that a healthy woman 30 weeks pregnant decides to terminate her heathy fetus, I absolutely consider her a baby killer.

On the other hand, if there’s a medical risk to her, or if the developing baby is materially unhealthy, I consider that a tragedy.

 

[Emily Lake]

oesn'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.

The exact same protocols that were in place under RvW, which did NOT interfere with medically necessary care.

Why do you think the exact same guidelines are now a travesty and an injustice?

 

[Emily Lake]

Because random last second... oh for no reason in general... abortions happen. Yes, they probably do happen.

Because baby murder does sometimes happen, but it’s too rare for people to bother with?

 

[Emily Lake]

We have a long history of both Emily and Bomb putting forward unscientific trash.

No we don’t. We do have a history of you disregarding and ignoring information and data that conflicts with your beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

Medical practitioners already are governed by codes of ethics and further by best practices established by medical associations and hospital boards.

Here’s the problem: you’re working on the assumption that doctors do things that you think are reasonable to do. You have an “ought” in your mind that is perfectly rational and appropriate to any sane person, so you assume that doctors conform to that “ought”. In reality, however, there are no specific universal medical guidelines on this. There is no medical board that outlines when a late abortion is unacceptable. It’s left to the discretion of the doctor… and some of those doctors hold the same view as LD.

It’s similar to some of the discussions around sex trait modification treatments for minors. A rational person would think a doctor “ought” to evaluate the mental health of a minor and determine root cause of dysphoria prior to prescribing drugs that cause long term physical harm and potential sterility to kids. That makes sense, and it’s obvious the right thing to do. But that isn’t what has been actually happening.

It’s unfortunate, but doctors aren’t saints. Some of them don’t do what they ought to do, and some do what they ought not to do. When the medical industry fails to appropriately police itself, it is the duty of a good gover To act in the interest of society and place safeguards and guidelines around practices that can cause great harm.

It’s not even all that rare. The FDA provides guidelines and limitations for all sorts of drugs.

 

[Emily Lake]

The use of case study is only really valid for studying a particular process in detail, and this unscientific trash does not apply case study that way.

Did you even bother to read the study and its purpose before jumping to the conclusion that it must be nefarious? I don’t think you did. If you did then you DEFINITELY didn’t understand the author’s intentions.

You have a nasty habit of assuming that people who disagree with you are evil, and that and data or information that disagrees with your beliefs must be fake or distorted.

You’re one of the most biased people I’ve interacted with.

 

[laughing dog]

oesn'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.

The exact same protocols that were in place under RvW, which did NOT interfere with medically necessary care.

There you go again redefining the issue. “Needed health care” - JH’s phrase- is not identical to medically necessary health care.

Healthcare includes physical and mental healthcare. The protocols under RvW allowed states to interfere with access in different ways.

Yes, RvW permitted expanded access to needed safe health care, especially compared to the current situation. You may feel that was a preferable situation to the present one, but don’t pretend it didn’t interfere with access to needed health care.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

oesn'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.

The exact same protocols that were in place under RvW, which did NOT interfere with medically necessary care.

You aren't saying you want the status quo as it was. You have been saying Roe v Wade but....

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, it is cherry picking when there are liars for Jesus who will say anything about the procedure to FoR ThE ChiLdReN.

You ASSUMING that survey respondents are lying because you don’t like what they say does not make your assumption true.

Your wishes and beliefs don’t govern reality.

It’s also abundantly clear that you couldn’t be bothered to read the case studies at all. You have no comprehension of the author’s intentions and purpose, nor of the situations of the respondents.

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course, yet another dishonest debate tactic is mis-characterizing

 

[Emily Lake]

Edit: it's also very interesting with respect to Hypocrisy and the CAS review that a very large number of much more vetted, statistically valid studies were run and rejected under much thinner rationale (a lack of double blinding) including a large variety of case study in *exactly in difficult collection environments*, and yet somehow, those rejections are valid and yet mine isn't

1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.