Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

My guess is you haven’t ready the paper because if you had, you wouldn’t make such an error.

He doesn't even need to have read it, all he needs to do is understand the flaw I'm pointing out.

 

[Toni]

That’s the thing: there is no clear cut line of demarcation. There will never be unanimous consensus. Which for me means: it has to be up to the mother and doctor .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

But I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that a week prior to delivery falls clearly on the ‘baby’ side, and a reasonable majority would agree that a week after conception does not. I think it’s entirely plausible and reasonable to pick the inflection point, and maybe add a week to it. So if inflection is 28 weeks, set the voluntary limit at 29.

Don’t make a lack of perfection be an obstacle to reasonable and prudent guidelines.

Judaism also holds the same view: that life begins with the first breath.

It’s ok that you disagree with me or LD or Jahryn or anybody and everybody in the world.

Don’t have any abortion if you believe that it is ethically or morally wrong to do so.

But don’t suppose you have a right to make that call first anyone else.

Fine. Babies are completely dependent on others for survival, they’re parasites, so if the parents decide they don’t want it they should be allowed to kill that baby at any point, right?

Sigh. Babies are NOT parasites. Not before and not after birth.

The definition ( in biology) of parasite excludes fetuses developing ( regardless of species).

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t disagree but:

I think whether the reason is ‘good enough’ is up to the mother whose body bears the burden, whose life is at risk every day the pregnancy continues, along with her doctor who will be guided by their skills as a medical practitioner and by their oath and by the ethical guidelines of the medical facility and by their professional organizations.

Show me the guidelines about abortion that would lead a doctor who hold’s LD’s view from aborting a healthy fetus the week before it’s due, to a mother who holds Jarhyn’s view.

Every medical facility with a license has guidelines. So does the AMA. So does the ACOG. You have Google.

Also: you find me a case of a woman demanding an abortion a week before the due date.

I won’t be holding my breath.

She claimed several times there was no standard of care for abortion providers. She was wrong then too.

Please provide those standards of care and the guidelines that would preclude a doctor performing an abortion for no medical reason a week before due date. You made the claim, you’ve asserted that I’m wrong. Support your claim.

You have googled. And standards of care would depend on the medical facility . And which professional organization the physician belongs to.

When I was pregnant with my youngest child, I knew that I would be having another c-section and that I wa ted a tubal ligation. It was easiest and cheapest to do it at the time of c-section. I went to the obstructs who delivered her older brother and he was no longer delivering at the hospital where her brother was delivered. Only at a Catholic hospital where I could not have my tubes tied.

I got a different obstetrician.

Hospitals do put constraints and have guidelines.

I have googled, and been unable to find the guidelines and restrictions that you have assured me definitely exist. You claimed that the governing entities for all doctors have such guidelines. It’s your claim. Support it.

 

[Toni]

But it does not matter what 95% of people believe about another person’s pregnancy.

And frankly, 95% of people are abominably ignorant of basic facts about pregnancy, female ( or male) anatomy, childbirth and fetal development.

The only person’s opinion that matters is the woman’s and her doctor’s.

Is there any circumstance at all in which you personally would consider it murder? Is there any circumstance where you personally would say “no, that’s not okay”?

I’m certain that there are. There certainly are circumstances where I believe that the woman should not have an abortion, the circumstance that leaps to mind is if she doesn’t want to have an abortion.

 

[Emily Lake]

That’s the thing: there is no clear cut line of demarcation. There will never be unanimous consensus. Which for me means: it has to be up to the mother and doctor .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

As opposed to the ever changing magical “viability” standard?

Suppose society according to your stated procedure agreed that
1) abortion is legal until delivery, or
2) abortion is legal only when the mother’s life is in imminent danger.

Would you be copacetic with each outcome?

If those were the only possible choices, I’d go with 1. Luckily, those aren’t the only possible choices. And up until fairly recently, we had a very reasonable, rational, workable middle ground solution that minimized the risks and was still more generous toward the mother’s wishes than almost any other country.

How about we just do that?

Why do you think that is not the practice today in states without draconian abortion prohibitions?

it is the practice in 18 states. I don’t know what you think your question accomplishes.

 

[Emily Lake]

That’s the thing: there is no clear cut line of demarcation. There will never be unanimous consensus. Which for me means: it has to be up to the mother and doctor .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

But I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that a week prior to delivery falls clearly on the ‘baby’ side, and a reasonable majority would agree that a week after conception does not. I think it’s entirely plausible and reasonable to pick the inflection point, and maybe add a week to it. So if inflection is 28 weeks, set the voluntary limit at 29.

Don’t make a lack of perfection be an obstacle to reasonable and prudent guidelines.

Judaism also holds the same view: that life begins with the first breath.

It’s ok that you disagree with me or LD or Jahryn or anybody and everybody in the world.

Don’t have any abortion if you believe that it is ethically or morally wrong to do so.

But don’t suppose you have a right to make that call first anyone else.

Fine. Babies are completely dependent on others for survival, they’re parasites, so if the parents decide they don’t want it they should be allowed to kill that baby at any point, right?

Sigh. Babies are NOT parasites. Not before and not after birth.

The definition ( in biology) of parasite excludes fetuses developing ( regardless of species).

Do you think I’m not aware of this? Or do you think perhaps I’m trying to make a point about the reality that at some point it’s a baby, regardless of whether it’s completely self sufficient.

 

[Toni]

I don’t disagree but:

I think whether the reason is ‘good enough’ is up to the mother whose body bears the burden, whose life is at risk every day the pregnancy continues, along with her doctor who will be guided by their skills as a medical practitioner and by their oath and by the ethical guidelines of the medical facility and by their professional organizations.

Show me the guidelines about abortion that would lead a doctor who hold’s LD’s view from aborting a healthy fetus the week before it’s due, to a mother who holds Jarhyn’s view.

Every medical facility with a license has guidelines. So does the AMA. So does the ACOG. You have Google.

Also: you find me a case of a woman demanding an abortion a week before the due date.

I won’t be holding my breath.

She claimed several times there was no standard of care for abortion providers. She was wrong then too.

Please provide those standards of care and the guidelines that would preclude a doctor performing an abortion for no medical reason a week before due date. You made the claim, you’ve asserted that I’m wrong. Support your claim.

You have googled. And standards of care would depend on the medical facility . And which professional organization the physician belongs to.

When I was pregnant with my youngest child, I knew that I would be having another c-section and that I wa ted a tubal ligation. It was easiest and cheapest to do it at the time of c-section. I went to the obstructs who delivered her older brother and he was no longer delivering at the hospital where her brother was delivered. Only at a Catholic hospital where I could not have my tubes tied.

I got a different obstetrician.

Hospitals do put constraints and have guidelines.

I have googled, and been unable to find the guidelines and restrictions that you have assured me definitely exist. You claimed that the governing entities for all doctors have such guidelines. It’s your claim. Support it.

I don’t believe you put any effort into your search.

I found this in 10 seconds.

I have company and I’m making dinner.

I do not care whether you agree or disagree with me. I don’t care if you think my position is irresponsible.

The fact is that it is not my business what pregnant women decide under the advice and care of their physician.

Abortion

The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice.

code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org

 

[Toni]

That’s the thing: there is no clear cut line of demarcation. There will never be unanimous consensus. Which for me means: it has to be up to the mother and doctor .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

As opposed to the ever changing magical “viability” standard?

Suppose society according to your stated procedure agreed that
1) abortion is legal until delivery, or
2) abortion is legal only when the mother’s life is in imminent danger.

Would you be copacetic with each outcome?

If those were the only possible choices, I’d go with 1. Luckily, those aren’t the only possible choices. And up until fairly recently, we had a very reasonable, rational, workable middle ground solution that minimized the risks and was still more generous toward the mother’s wishes than almost any other country.

How about we just do that?

Why do you think that is not the practice today in states without draconian abortion prohibitions?

it is the practice in 18 states. I don’t know what you think your question accomplishes.

I have no idea what you think any of your questions accomplish.

I’m out.

Play by yourself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This "research" reminds me of study done back in the '90s. A radio show host, of a seriously feminist program, asked her audience to send her a card or letter saying whether they were happy in their marriage or not.
According to her research, 78% of American women were unhappy in their marriage. Which she proceeded to talk about extensively on her program.
Tom

I think you're confusing two different things. What you described just above is what I've always known as an "unscientific survery". It boasts of a numerical answer (78%) that is obtained through inappropriate, self selecting methods, and as such, is not a reliable result. You are correct in being skeptical of the numerical results obtained in this case. The survey (of the 28 women) in question was not attempting to reach any sort of quantitative conclusion, AFAIK. Its merely a collection of anecdotal experiences of multiple women who have had third trimester abortions. Its been a while since I read it all the way through (in fact, I think I was the one who originally discovered this survery about two years earlier in this thread), but I don't recall any statistical conclusions about it regarding the ubiquitesness of 3rd trimester abortions or other quantitative conclusions. Whether some/all of the 28 women are lying is another issue. Perhaps a small percentage are, but I would suspect most are relaying an accurate account.

If this were all that it was I would have no problem with it.

But both "studies" include abortions for convenience reasons. This looks very much like a Trojan horse, trying to slip in data of improper abortions to then be used by other studies to prove improper abortions. Widespread access to scientific papers has lead to things like this. The style felt very wrong, I started looking and found the gaping hole in the selection system.

 

[Emily Lake]

But it does not matter what 95% of people believe about another person’s pregnancy.

And frankly, 95% of people are abominably ignorant of basic facts about pregnancy, female ( or male) anatomy, childbirth and fetal development.

The only person’s opinion that matters is the woman’s and her doctor’s.

Is there any circumstance at all in which you personally would consider it murder? Is there any circumstance where you personally would say “no, that’s not okay”?

I’m certain that there are. There certainly are circumstances where I believe that the woman should not have an abortion, the circumstance that leaps to mind is if she doesn’t want to have an abortion.

That’s a weasel response, but let’s go with it for the moment.

If someone kills a woman’s fetus without her permission, what transgression do you think has been committed?

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t disagree but:

I think whether the reason is ‘good enough’ is up to the mother whose body bears the burden, whose life is at risk every day the pregnancy continues, along with her doctor who will be guided by their skills as a medical practitioner and by their oath and by the ethical guidelines of the medical facility and by their professional organizations.

Show me the guidelines about abortion that would lead a doctor who hold’s LD’s view from aborting a healthy fetus the week before it’s due, to a mother who holds Jarhyn’s view.

Every medical facility with a license has guidelines. So does the AMA. So does the ACOG. You have Google.

Also: you find me a case of a woman demanding an abortion a week before the due date.

I won’t be holding my breath.

She claimed several times there was no standard of care for abortion providers. She was wrong then too.

Please provide those standards of care and the guidelines that would preclude a doctor performing an abortion for no medical reason a week before due date. You made the claim, you’ve asserted that I’m wrong. Support your claim.

You have googled. And standards of care would depend on the medical facility . And which professional organization the physician belongs to.

When I was pregnant with my youngest child, I knew that I would be having another c-section and that I wa ted a tubal ligation. It was easiest and cheapest to do it at the time of c-section. I went to the obstructs who delivered her older brother and he was no longer delivering at the hospital where her brother was delivered. Only at a Catholic hospital where I could not have my tubes tied.

I got a different obstetrician.

Hospitals do put constraints and have guidelines.

I have googled, and been unable to find the guidelines and restrictions that you have assured me definitely exist. You claimed that the governing entities for all doctors have such guidelines. It’s your claim. Support it.

I don’t believe you put any effort into your search.

I found this in 10 seconds.

I have company and I’m making dinner.

I do not care whether you agree or disagree with me. I don’t care if you think my position is irresponsible.

The fact is that it is not my business what pregnant women decide under the advice and care of their physician.

What did you find?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

Well the study asked for respondents who had a particular experience.

What did you expect? Cold calling women to ask if they’d had a third trimester abortion? THAT woukd get you a lot of ideologically driven falsehoods for sure. Likely from men.

The fliers were distributed elsewhere, unspecified. That pretty much amounts to the cold calling you're referring to. As you say, it would get ideologically driven falsehoods.

 

[Emily Lake]

This "research" reminds me of study done back in the '90s. A radio show host, of a seriously feminist program, asked her audience to send her a card or letter saying whether they were happy in their marriage or not.
According to her research, 78% of American women were unhappy in their marriage. Which she proceeded to talk about extensively on her program.
Tom

I think you're confusing two different things. What you described just above is what I've always known as an "unscientific survery". It boasts of a numerical answer (78%) that is obtained through inappropriate, self selecting methods, and as such, is not a reliable result. You are correct in being skeptical of the numerical results obtained in this case. The survey (of the 28 women) in question was not attempting to reach any sort of quantitative conclusion, AFAIK. Its merely a collection of anecdotal experiences of multiple women who have had third trimester abortions. Its been a while since I read it all the way through (in fact, I think I was the one who originally discovered this survery about two years earlier in this thread), but I don't recall any statistical conclusions about it regarding the ubiquitesness of 3rd trimester abortions or other quantitative conclusions. Whether some/all of the 28 women are lying is another issue. Perhaps a small percentage are, but I would suspect most are relaying an accurate account.

If this were all that it was I would have no problem with it.

But both "studies" include abortions for convenience reasons. This looks very much like a Trojan horse, trying to slip in data of improper abortions to then be used by other studies to prove improper abortions. Widespread access to scientific papers has lead to things like this. The style felt very wrong, I started looking and found the gaping hole in the selection system.

How can there possibly be such a thing as an “improper” abortion when you profess that there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortions? What makes it “improper” in your view?

 

[Emily Lake]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

Well the study asked for respondents who had a particular experience.

What did you expect? Cold calling women to ask if they’d had a third trimester abortion? THAT woukd get you a lot of ideologically driven falsehoods for sure. Likely from men.

The fliers were distributed elsewhere, unspecified. That pretty much amounts to the cold calling you're referring to. As you say, it would get ideologically driven falsehoods.

Can you point to any of the case studies presented and explain why you think that case study suggests fabrication?

 

[Toni]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

Well the study asked for respondents who had a particular experience.

What did you expect? Cold calling women to ask if they’d had a third trimester abortion? THAT woukd get you a lot of ideologically driven falsehoods for sure. Likely from men.

The fliers were distributed elsewhere, unspecified. That pretty much amounts to the cold calling you're referring to. As you say, it would get ideologically driven falsehoods.

So what did you find so surprising in the responses?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at those two(???) "studies" (I find them about as fishy as a tuna boat) Emily posted. Both attempting to show some third trimester abortions are merely a choice.

Yeah, again you didn’t really read it, did you?

Some people here insisted that late abortions never ever happen unless it’s a life-threatening situation. I provided evidence that there do exist situations in which a healthy mother does abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester.

But not a single one was casual or light-hearted about it, nor have I claimed they were.

At least you understand what the studies are about.

But that still doesn't change the flaw. Plenty of other people saw the flier--you really think no liars were involved??

 

[Emily Lake]

Look at those two(???) "studies" (I find them about as fishy as a tuna boat) Emily posted. Both attempting to show some third trimester abortions are merely a choice.

Yeah, again you didn’t really read it, did you?

Some people here insisted that late abortions never ever happen unless it’s a life-threatening situation. I provided evidence that there do exist situations in which a healthy mother does abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester.

But not a single one was casual or light-hearted about it, nor have I claimed they were.

At least you understand what the studies are about.

But that still doesn't change the flaw. Plenty of other people saw the flier--you really think no liars were involved??

Why do you assume without evidence that any liars were involved?

 

[laughing dog]

“Generally of living on its own outside the womb” is simply untrue for any baby or even 1 year olds.

Don’t pretend to be confused. I’m not going to play these stupid games anymore. You know what’s meant. I know you know. Everybody knows. So playing stupid word games just
makes us all dumber.

Pure evasion. I don’t know what you mean.

Babies need care. So how much care and do the parent(s) have to be able to afford?

And given conception, gestation and birth times are estimates, how to legally deal with that uncertainty?

As I’ve already said, pick the inflection point and add a week.

Non- responsive

I get that a large portion of the population feel that a fetus becomes a baby sometime before emerging into the world. But interfering in private medical decisions because of “feelings” seems very impractical and wrong headed to me, in addition to very unfair.

Killing babies late in gestation without a good medical reason is sociopathic and cruel. It’s as wrongheaded to me as condoning infanticide.

A fetus is not a baby. Stop trying to make us all dumber with your stupid word fames.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

My guess is you haven’t ready the paper because if you had, you wouldn’t make such an error.

He doesn't even need to have read it, all he needs to do is understand the flaw I'm pointing out.

Your flaw exists solely in your mind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

RvW didn't come with the gotcha that's taking over in the red states.

That has fuck all to do with my views, stop being disingenuous.

Last I knew Texas still refused to provide any medical guidelines, thus leaving the doctors in the position of shooing the women out to die.

So go fucking argue with Texas instead of trying to denigrate me for a view I don’t fucking hold.

And you think Texas wouldn't do the same thing if RvW were the law of the land??

You're looking at a perfect world where a doctor can unquestionably tell if the fetus will kill the woman. Real world, doctors mostly deal in probabilities. Look at what is happening in the pro-punishment states: if the pregnancy can't be visualized it's likely ectopic. The safe path is chemical termination. But, no, wait and see. Maybe they just missed it, but the likely outcome is she loses half her fertility. And maybe her life.

Obviously, in the third trimester there would be no ectopics, but we've seen them throwing bleeding women out to die. Some manage to make it to states that will save their life, some don't.