Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

You're right. It isn't a novel concept. People here have been saying that over and over again.

Where I think the argument is rooted is in who gets to decide what's reasonable, what's necessary, and whether this is a matter for a pregnant woman and her doctor to decide.

Your arguments indicate you think the woman and her doctor shouldn't have the final say, that there should be laws they cannot transgress. Others obviously think they should, that the laws should never disallow medical procedures that a pregnant woman and her doctors think is needed. I think the politicians and preachers who want to criminalize abortions should become better educated about women's health because some of those folks are so ignorant they don't have a clue just how clueless they are. If they weren't so ignorant they wouldn't write terrible laws just like the one that prevented doctors in Ireland from providing the medical care Savita Halappanavar needed

Look, I have too much going on to play word games. I’m tired, I’m grieving, and I simply don’t have the patience for bullshit.

You keep substituting things that nobody in this thread is talking about, and for which there is absolutely no confusion at all. From context, it’s abundantly clear we’re talking about voluntary abortion - not spontaneous abortion which is commonly referred to as miscarriage, nor doctor assisted early termination of pregnancy with a live birth which is commonly referred to as induced delivery. You know that’s not what anyone is talking about. So why try to introduce obfuscatory language? It’s disingenuous attempts to hijack and distract from the actual topic. Thus, a red herring.

You (and others) also keep mischaracterizing the debate and focusing on cases where there’s a clear medical need for abortion, either to save the mother from injury or death, or because the fetus is deformed or otherwise unable to thrive. You, and others, keep pretending like I oppose such needed procedures, despite me having been exceedingly and repeatedly clear about it.

I’m not going to engage in a stupid linguistic joust where the objective seems to be the intentional complication and obfuscation of the topic, as if that would somehow result in a ‘win’ for you. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and an insult to all of our intelligence.

So how about we stick with the actual crux of the issue, and address it with a modicum of integrity?

I'm not playing word games.

You keep missing my point and I keep trying to explain it to you. A third trimester abortion that intentionally destroys a healthy fetus is an extreme act. That doesn't automatically make it a bad choice. It should never be done wantonly but it should be available as an option for those extremely rare times when providing the best medical care possible makes it a valid choice.

I oppose laws that rule out types of abortions or limiting when they might be done because when laws like that have been adopted the result was women dying for no good reason.

Just so we’re on the same page, the only countries that you would support, given the above, are china, guinea-bissau, North Korea, Vietnam, and apparently Canada. With the exception of Canada, every single other westernized democracy on the planet has a gestational limit for voluntary, non-medical-necessity abortions. RvW had a more generous limit than nearly all European countries.

I’ll also remind you - again - that medical need is something I 100% support. The only thing I oppose is when there is NOT a medical need AND the pregnancy is in the last trimester. And even then, I’d be quite willing to push that threshold to something higher than the 27 week mark (?) that RvW used.

Do you personally think that it should be legal and allowable for a healthy woman with no identifiable medical risk to voluntarily abort and kill her perfectly healthy fetus, when that fetus has reached a stage where it is viable outside the womb?

Does there exist a late gestational situation for which you would view abortion as immoral, and equivalent to the intentional murder of a human?

I believe it should be legal for a healthy 30 weeks pregnant women to abort her healthy fetus but I also believe she should have a damn good reason to do it. The same goes for the doctor who agrees to help her. And of course, by abort I mean terminate the pregnancy. Destroying the fetus when live birth is possible would be a violation of medical ethics unless there is a valid reason to believe a live birth would result in a worse outcome.

Let me get this straight, because your view seems unusual to me. Your position seems to be that if a woman 30 weeks along, with no medical issues, with a fetus that is healthy, decides she doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy… you support her right to terminate the pregnancy, but not to kill the baby? Meaning, you would obligate her to induce labor early and go through delivery?

I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure an induced early delivery would be more dangerous for both the baby and the mother than carrying it to term. Certainly more dangerous than aborting.

At that point in gestation, I’m pretty sure carrying to term would be the safest option if you oppose killing the baby on ethical grounds.

If that answer it too nuanced for your liking, that's too bad. Social interactions are nuanced and thoughts are sometimes vague and lack hard edges. Communication can be difficult. And on top of that, biology is messy.

Stop accusing me of lacking integrity just because my arguments don't fit your preferred pattern or because I include details you ignore when I make decisions about things. I'm not you, and I don't think like you.

I don’t accuse you of lacking integrity in this discussion because your arguments don’t fit my preferred pattern. I did so because you introduced complications that absolutely nobody at all was confused about, and which serve no apparent purpose other than to distract and obfuscate.

We

 

[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.

Too low a bar. I suspect there are cases of a woman demanding. That doesn't mean there are cases of a woman getting.

Sure sure, because the ones who said they got were just lying. For reasons.

 

[Emily Lake]

No you believe that the only acceptable reason for late term abortions is medical need. But that concept is nebulous. There is no single universal criteria that applies to everyone. Some women willingly forgo necessary medical treatment so their baby can be born. Some women choose to terminate a pregnancy to receive life saving treatment. Rarely, a delivery goes so badly that only the mother or child can be saved. Sometimes both die.

These are not decisions that can be made by any other person than the woman and her doctor.

“We can’t make it 100% perfect all the time, so I guess we just have to accept killing babies a few days before they’re due.”

Your reasoning here is comparable to someone arguing that because pornography can’t be perfectly defined in every single situation, then we have to allow graphic gang-bangs during Saturday’s morning cartoon time. It’s silly, and short sighted. We can make a reasonable guideline, and hold doctors accountable for acknowledging and abiding by that guideline. Allowing doctors to determine medical necessity within a reasonable guideline seems far preferable to having no guidelines at all.

The problem is your answer isn't perfect, either. You are handing the decision to politicians who have repeatedly shown they don't believe there is a medical reason.

I’m not looking for perfect, I’m after reasonable.

Are you going to play the same dumb game that Elixir did a while back, and pretend that the existence of a law outlining when a late term abortion can be performed means that any woman going to the doctor with a medical problem is going to have to sit and wait until some elected official weighs in with their opinion?

 

[Emily Lake]

Babies. Are. Not. People. They can become people eventually, maybe, and not treating them with more care and respect than you would with an actual person really hurts their chances.

You can disagree with that all you like and be as wrong as you like, and you can watch me put my ethics into action and be surprised at how wrong you are at what the results might look like, but personally I find it rather "appalling" that anyone could imagine justifying anything different.

We don't treat babies like people because for a great many things, we do not seek their consent, and should not, and often cannot.

Babies aren't people, and fetuses sure as shit aren't.

If you think babies are people, you are wrong. They ARE something that deserves all the "welcome" humanity can offer because we have it on good suspicion that any particular baby could achieve that, but they aren't people.

That said, I value "people" so greatly that any miniscule risk of harming, abusing, or otherwise destroying someone or something that might some day be a "person" should never be done, unless they stand over a similar being doing the same, and only to the extent to stop them.

I will accept that monkeys and apes can be people, that perhaps even dogs can be people, and if I can accept they can be "people" or not, I have to accept that humans can be "people" or not, too. It's a matter of consistency.

This is a sociopathic, reckless, negligent, and downright inhumane opinion. Your belief is monstrous.

 

[Emily Lake]

No you believe that the only acceptable reason for late term abortions is medical need. But that concept is nebulous. There is no single universal criteria that applies to everyone. Some women willingly forgo necessary medical treatment so their baby can be born. Some women choose to terminate a pregnancy to receive life saving treatment. Rarely, a delivery goes so badly that only the mother or child can be saved. Sometimes both die.

These are not decisions that can be made by any other person than the woman and her doctor.

“We can’t make it 100% perfect all the time, so I guess we just have to accept killing babies a few days before they’re due.”

Your reasoning here is comparable to someone arguing that because pornography can’t be perfectly defined in every single situation, then we have to allow graphic gang-bangs during Saturday’s morning cartoon time. It’s silly, and short sighted. We can make a reasonable guideline, and hold doctors accountable for acknowledging and abiding by that guideline. Allowing doctors to determine medical necessity within a reasonable guideline seems far preferable to having no guidelines at all.

The problem is your answer isn't perfect, either. You are handing the decision to politicians who have repeatedly shown they don't believe there is a medical reason.

Yes. We should absolutely accept killing fetuses a few days before they are due, because there is no actual harm that anyone can actually point to.

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?

This is logically equivalent to "why do you assume any bacteria are on this food that was dropped on the ground? You haven't checked this ground for bacteria!"

Liars for Jesus are ubiquitous. A brief lookup will show you the percentage of the population vehemently opposed to abortion for ideological reasons.

There were > 28 respondents, so this implies high statistical likelihood of at least a few liars-for-Jesus in there.

That, however, is rather "evidence" that we should distrust some minimal minority of responses, and that we can likely distrust the author, given his methodology, in seeking such responses to present.

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?

Emily keeps failing to remember that I don't think personhood begins at delivery.

I personally don't think it really "begins" until some time quite later, if ever, for a lot of people.

Then, I also confer the benefit of the doubt, at least in something's possible future as a person, so long as it doesn't place that path intentionally across the lives of others which also have such potential.

We can never really infer when it first comes into being or if it does for most, but we know surely that it does for at least some, and treating others badly tends to make a person who has a much harder time being good to others, and makes it more bothersome to ever achieve personhood for them.

I think personhood is the accomplishment of understanding that other people have equivalently potent justifications as oneself, and if they reject the potency of certain justifications of others, they must logically reject their own such justifications, and the general structure of how and what we justify rather than the specifics can be used to generate a general statement of what cannot be justified, namely something in the vicinity of "acting unilaterally against consent".

I'm not even a very good person, assuming I am a "person" at all, myself. How can I criticize others for missing the mark so long as they fix their mistakes and don't push others around?

But I think any such creature is properly entitled to one of "fairly painlessly rendered non-existence prior to 'introductions being made'," or "getting 'the best of introductions we can manage'."

Anything less is kind of fucked up, IMO. And we do a really bad job with most things we force to exist, but "everyone's gotta eat"

Tell me you know nothing about babies without saying a word about babies.

You are even less informed or correct than those who believe that life and personhood begins the second d aspen touches an egg. Your briefs are appalling in this regard.

Get fucked? I don't really care. Babies. Are. Not. People. They can become people eventually, maybe, and not treating them with more care and respect than you would with an actual person really hurts their chances.

You can disagree with that all you like and be as wrong as you like, and you can watch me put my ethics into action and be surprised at how wrong you are at what the results might look like, but personally I find it rather "appalling" that anyone could imagine justifying anything different.

We don't treat babies like people because for a great many things, we do not seek their consent, and should not, and often cannot.

Babies aren't people, and fetuses sure as shit aren't.

If you think babies are people, you are wrong. They ARE something that deserves all the "welcome" humanity can offer because we have it on good suspicion that any particular baby could achieve that, but they aren't people.

That said, I value "people" so greatly that any miniscule risk of harming, abusing, or otherwise destroying someone or something that might some day be a "person" should never be done, unless they stand over a similar being doing the same, and only to the extent to stop them.

I will accept that monkeys and apes can be people, that perhaps even dogs can be people, and if I can accept they can be "people" or not, I have to accept that humans can be "people" or not, too. It's a matter of consistency.

You can fuck all the way off, too.

Your POV re: babies is appalling and disgusting .

Babies aren't people.

They are precious and important for what they can become and infinitely fragile for how much harder it can be for them to become that (people). They deserve all the love and treatment of a person except when they clearly are not acting as such, for the person they may one day become.

But they aren't people.

If we're going to seek some real quality of personhood that isn't racially restricted to a particular variety of great ape, then we have to be willing to admit that it isn't necessarily complete or even necessarily common among the one particular variety. Accepting the exception means accepting the exception both ways.

It just happens that most humans (and probably most other species) already "mostly get it", so they should probably get most of the benefits of personhood most of the time, and humans are particularly good at even paying lipservice to the golden rule. It's so impossible to tell the difference between most adults and people, and for that matter even young children, that the difference doesn't much even matter.

I also recognize that rather than becoming a person, or just after taking a brief experimental trip through personhood and either way one of not being treated like a person or being taught/groomed to become something else, a human being can end end up becoming one of the most terrifying monsters capable of existing in this world which, owing to the fact that they can still at any point spontaneously become a "person" and/or pretend to have, are still owed mercy and the benefit of the doubt when possible.

I recognize that there's every reason to cry at the tragedy of harming children, in part because of that terrifying monster any of us can become, and which some most assuredly are owing to the fact folks occasionally go about making skin suits and melting people's brains with acid to make short-lived sex slaves of them before shoving their corpses in barrels.

The child that doesn't feel the warmth of the village's love will feel the warmth of the village on fire or whatever. I'll cry like the next person at the prospect of harming a child because I feel like it, and will feel better anger at the person who does it.

I don't do it on account of thinking babies are people because they aren't. If they are ever to have a hope of it, we need to show them the power of mercy and love they haven't even remotely "earned" when it's our place to offer it all the same, which should be read as 'tje same, just as if they were 'people who make mistakes' because for all we know, they might be some time very soon.

But no. Humans don't all get to necessarily BE people even if they all get to be treated like it most of the time.

If you need proof, just look at me, I guess, since you think me thinking this makes me such a monster! Or maybe I'm not a monster, but honest about the idea that some humans use language as a means to get what they want than as a means to know one another and invest in them socially, and act as a place for them to invest socially, and to make the deaths of any of us tragic for the loss of any of that.

I refuse to be inconsistent on this topic: if a great ape that is not human can be a "person", and such a great ape can also not, then a great ape that is a human can also be not. Then, we could say the same thing about an AI.

In reality, all it really says is that while I might hurt to watch someone have a late term abortion in certain rare edge cases, I'm going to swallow every ounce of that hurt because it's none of my fucking business and I expect others to do the goddamn same, because fetuses are not people because babies are not people. Arguably if a premature labor could be introduced and a healthy-ish human could land in the arms of someone who is willing to take the baby as their own, things get a little bit complicated, at least for me, because of what I think is owed to anyone brought that far rather than being given a swift and merciful end (assuming it's not a child of a rape; sorry kid, I'll let the pregnant person make that call right up until you're screaming in open air).

That said, once the fetus IS a baby, someone will always be willing to provide that mercy, and society will have already started the work of investing in that human, regardless of whether they even have any such right, and they're going to claim they do anyway. This is because people (even of the sort that aren't but we're going to pretend are anyway, for all the reasons I just outlined) generally love the idea of there being more people to carry on and hope that keeps happening to some degree (and I'm one of them).

We get directly back to the need to instill on a such a (maybe- or eventually-) person the value of participating in being merciful and loving and in leaving each other the fuck alone if that's what they want, and showing them that actually does happen because enough people participate that their participation in turn probably won't be in vain.

I don't think it's bad behavior to abort a fetus, even if the people some imagine to existed in enough profusion so as to actually identify them and measure them (they don't exist in measurable quantities, though, as everyone here except Emily seems prepared to readily admit). I don't think humans have any great obligation to maintain the human species at all. Nobody is actually harmed by it, least of all something that has no novel experience and whom is not wanted by the (much more probable) person gestating it.

Based on the deplorable views you assert here, I feel confident saying you are not a ‘person’.

 

[Toni]

No you believe that the only acceptable reason for late term abortions is medical need. But that concept is nebulous. There is no single universal criteria that applies to everyone. Some women willingly forgo necessary medical treatment so their baby can be born. Some women choose to terminate a pregnancy to receive life saving treatment. Rarely, a delivery goes so badly that only the mother or child can be saved. Sometimes both die.

These are not decisions that can be made by any other person than the woman and her doctor.

“We can’t make it 100% perfect all the time, so I guess we just have to accept killing babies a few days before they’re due.”

Your reasoning here is comparable to someone arguing that because pornography can’t be perfectly defined in every single situation, then we have to allow graphic gang-bangs during Saturday’s morning cartoon time. It’s silly, and short sighted. We can make a reasonable guideline, and hold doctors accountable for acknowledging and abiding by that guideline. Allowing doctors to determine medical necessity within a reasonable guideline seems far preferable to having no guidelines at all.

The problem is your answer isn't perfect, either. You are handing the decision to politicians who have repeatedly shown they don't believe there is a medical reason.

I’m not looking for perfect, I’m after reasonable.

Are you going to play the same dumb game that Elixir did a while back, and pretend that the existence of a law outlining when a late term abortion can be performed means that any woman going to the doctor with a medical problem is going to have to sit and wait until some elected official weighs in with their opinion?

Emily, the fact is that women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws).

Women die of complications from pregnancy and childbirth at alarming rates. Even healthy women , women who are medically sophisticated and knowledgeable, who are doctors and nurses in obstetrics!

Babies are not being saved. Fetuses are not being saved. Women are dying and so are their fetuses. Women are losing their fertility. Women are going home with babies who are profoundly and irrevocably and fatally disabled.

Do you know anyone caring for a profoundly disabled child? Have you had a friend whose child was diagnosed with a disorder that the doctors called incompatible with life? A friend recently lost her fifty year old profoundly disabled son. 50 years of loving a child who could never improve, despite tremendous effort, expense, love and a marriage! I have friends and relatives who have lost children to illnesses, still birth, SIDS, accidents, miscarriages. My grandchild’s mother was at serious risk of stroke or death during her pregnancy and delivery-/—and after she delivered early to prevent her death/disability and that of my grandchild!

I’m not the one playing games here.

 

[Emily Lake]

Abortion on demand, to me, means that anyone can demand and get an abortion. Even if they’re not pregnant, or not female.
There is no such thing as abortion on demand afaik. But the phrase “abortion on demand” has a life of its own; it should have been aborted in its first trimester.

I am so tired of stupid nitpicks word games. So fine.

Here’s the definition: abortion (by which I mean killing or destroying) of a fetus with no known or suspected developmental abnormalities by the female human being in which it is gestating, where that female also has no known or suspected health issues that would be caused or exacerbated by pregnancy, specifically with respect to that female voluntarily choosing to abort that fetus of her own uncoerced free will.

Give me whatever the fuck short phrase or term you want to be used for this, because I’m not going to type out that entire paragraph just because you want to pretend to be confused about what is meant.

 

[Elixir]

women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws)

Don’t you think that loudly endorsing RvW provides excuse for letting women die, as long as it saves the occasional fetus?

 

[Emily Lake]

No you believe that the only acceptable reason for late term abortions is medical need. But that concept is nebulous. There is no single universal criteria that applies to everyone. Some women willingly forgo necessary medical treatment so their baby can be born. Some women choose to terminate a pregnancy to receive life saving treatment. Rarely, a delivery goes so badly that only the mother or child can be saved. Sometimes both die.

These are not decisions that can be made by any other person than the woman and her doctor.

“We can’t make it 100% perfect all the time, so I guess we just have to accept killing babies a few days before they’re due.”

Your reasoning here is comparable to someone arguing that because pornography can’t be perfectly defined in every single situation, then we have to allow graphic gang-bangs during Saturday’s morning cartoon time. It’s silly, and short sighted. We can make a reasonable guideline, and hold doctors accountable for acknowledging and abiding by that guideline. Allowing doctors to determine medical necessity within a reasonable guideline seems far preferable to having no guidelines at all.

The problem is your answer isn't perfect, either. You are handing the decision to politicians who have repeatedly shown they don't believe there is a medical reason.

I’m not looking for perfect, I’m after reasonable.

Are you going to play the same dumb game that Elixir did a while back, and pretend that the existence of a law outlining when a late term abortion can be performed means that any woman going to the doctor with a medical problem is going to have to sit and wait until some elected official weighs in with their opinion?

Emily, the fact is that women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws).

Women die of complications from pregnancy and childbirth at alarming rates. Even healthy women , women who are medically sophisticated and knowledgeable, who are doctors and nurses in obstetrics!

Babies are not being saved. Fetuses are not being saved. Women are dying and so are their fetuses. Women are losing their fertility. Women are going home with babies who are profoundly and irrevocably and fatally disabled.

Do you know anyone caring for a profoundly disabled child? Have you had a friend whose child was diagnosed with a disorder that the doctors called incompatible with life? A friend recently lost her fifty year old profoundly disabled son. 50 years of loving a child who could never improve, despite tremendous effort, expense, love and a marriage! I have friends and relatives who have lost children to illnesses, still birth, SIDS, accidents, miscarriages. My grandchild’s mother was at serious risk of stroke or death during her pregnancy and delivery-/—and after she delivered early to prevent her death/disability and that of my grandchild!

I’m not the one playing games here.

You’re playing games right here, in this very post.

Texas has stupid and repulsive laws. Somehow, you seem to feel that because Texas has stupid laws, I should therefore advocate against the guidelines previously established by RvW… otherwise I’m somehow complicit in women dying. It’s an absurd game, and I’m tired of it.

At absolutely no point have I ever supported such restrictive guidelines. Holding those stupid laws up as if they counter my views is illogical, irrational, disingenuous, and quite frankly dumb.


It’s just as absurd as the people giving you a hard time for wanting fully enclosed bathroom and shower stalls because someone else, somewhere else, wants to harm trans people. You’ve been on the receiving end of that. You know how dumb and insulting that is. Don’t engage in the same behavior.

 

[Emily Lake]

women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws)

Don’t you think that loudly endorsing RvW provides excuse for letting women die, as long as it saves the occasional fetus?

I think your viewpoint on this is retarded.

 

[Toni]

women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws)

Don’t you think that loudly endorsing RvW provides excuse for letting women die, as long as it saves the occasional fetus?

I broadly agree with Roe V Wade. I would not legislate restrictions on abortions in the third trimester for reasons I've enumerated more than once. Overturning Roe was a travesty of justice.

Yes, women are dying and no fetuses are being saved.

 

[Toni]

women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws)

Don’t you think that loudly endorsing RvW provides excuse for letting women die, as long as it saves the occasional fetus?

I think your viewpoint on this is retarded.

Well, that's helpful.

In fact, overturning RvW is exactly what allowed Texas and other states to enact the very draconian anti-abortion legislation you decry just above.

 

[Toni]

No you believe that the only acceptable reason for late term abortions is medical need. But that concept is nebulous. There is no single universal criteria that applies to everyone. Some women willingly forgo necessary medical treatment so their baby can be born. Some women choose to terminate a pregnancy to receive life saving treatment. Rarely, a delivery goes so badly that only the mother or child can be saved. Sometimes both die.

These are not decisions that can be made by any other person than the woman and her doctor.

“We can’t make it 100% perfect all the time, so I guess we just have to accept killing babies a few days before they’re due.”

Your reasoning here is comparable to someone arguing that because pornography can’t be perfectly defined in every single situation, then we have to allow graphic gang-bangs during Saturday’s morning cartoon time. It’s silly, and short sighted. We can make a reasonable guideline, and hold doctors accountable for acknowledging and abiding by that guideline. Allowing doctors to determine medical necessity within a reasonable guideline seems far preferable to having no guidelines at all.

The problem is your answer isn't perfect, either. You are handing the decision to politicians who have repeatedly shown they don't believe there is a medical reason.

I’m not looking for perfect, I’m after reasonable.

Are you going to play the same dumb game that Elixir did a while back, and pretend that the existence of a law outlining when a late term abortion can be performed means that any woman going to the doctor with a medical problem is going to have to sit and wait until some elected official weighs in with their opinion?

Emily, the fact is that women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws).

Women die of complications from pregnancy and childbirth at alarming rates. Even healthy women , women who are medically sophisticated and knowledgeable, who are doctors and nurses in obstetrics!

Babies are not being saved. Fetuses are not being saved. Women are dying and so are their fetuses. Women are losing their fertility. Women are going home with babies who are profoundly and irrevocably and fatally disabled.

Do you know anyone caring for a profoundly disabled child? Have you had a friend whose child was diagnosed with a disorder that the doctors called incompatible with life? A friend recently lost her fifty year old profoundly disabled son. 50 years of loving a child who could never improve, despite tremendous effort, expense, love and a marriage! I have friends and relatives who have lost children to illnesses, still birth, SIDS, accidents, miscarriages. My grandchild’s mother was at serious risk of stroke or death during her pregnancy and delivery-/—and after she delivered early to prevent her death/disability and that of my grandchild!

I’m not the one playing games here.

You’re playing games right here, in this very post.

Texas has stupid and repulsive laws. Somehow, you seem to feel that because Texas has stupid laws, I should therefore advocate against the guidelines previously established by RvW… otherwise I’m somehow complicit in women dying. It’s an absurd game, and I’m tired of it.

At absolutely no point have I ever supported such restrictive guidelines. Holding those stupid laws up as if they counter my views is illogical, irrational, disingenuous, and quite frankly dumb.


It’s just as absurd as the people giving you a hard time for wanting fully enclosed bathroom and shower stalls because someone else, somewhere else, wants to harm trans people. You’ve been on the receiving end of that. You know how dumb and insulting that is. Don’t engage in the same behavior.

No. I'm not suggesting that YOU should advocate for anything.

I've stated my position and my reasoning.

I have not and do not attack you or your position.

It's ok that we disagree.

Essentially we agree.

You insist that I enumerate conditions under which I would oppose late term abortions without yourself doing the same thing.

This is no game. This is women's lives we are talking about.

I personally have tried to talk more than one person out of having an abortion and have offered assistance to make things easier. But the 'easier' I was after was actually for me. I fortunately recognized this. And I helped them obtain abortions they needed. I know the reasons but why was I owed the reasons? Why did they have to justify anything to me? In those cases, they were early abortions. But where is that bright line? Who gets to decide what is a good enough reason? I cannot come up with any black and white answers for that so I say: it's between the woman and her doctor/medical team. I have confidence in the medical ethics and practices outlined by medical associations and medical facilities to provide guidance (and cover, where needed). I have ZERO confidence in my ability or yours or anybody's and certainly not the ability of lawmakers to decide what is a 'good enough' reason for someone to have a late term abortion.

I am certain that people will have abortions that I believe they should not have. But it's not my body and not my business. I have to relinquish control over other people's bodies. And the pretense and conceit that I have the right to control other people's bodies.

I think you should as well.

But you do you.

 

[Playball40]

You're right. It isn't a novel concept. People here have been saying that over and over again.

Where I think the argument is rooted is in who gets to decide what's reasonable, what's necessary, and whether this is a matter for a pregnant woman and her doctor to decide.

Your arguments indicate you think the woman and her doctor shouldn't have the final say, that there should be laws they cannot transgress. Others obviously think they should, that the laws should never disallow medical procedures that a pregnant woman and her doctors think is needed. I think the politicians and preachers who want to criminalize abortions should become better educated about women's health because some of those folks are so ignorant they don't have a clue just how clueless they are. If they weren't so ignorant they wouldn't write terrible laws just like the one that prevented doctors in Ireland from providing the medical care Savita Halappanavar needed

Look, I have too much going on to play word games. I’m tired, I’m grieving, and I simply don’t have the patience for bullshit.

You keep substituting things that nobody in this thread is talking about, and for which there is absolutely no confusion at all. From context, it’s abundantly clear we’re talking about voluntary abortion - not spontaneous abortion which is commonly referred to as miscarriage, nor doctor assisted early termination of pregnancy with a live birth which is commonly referred to as induced delivery. You know that’s not what anyone is talking about. So why try to introduce obfuscatory language? It’s disingenuous attempts to hijack and distract from the actual topic. Thus, a red herring.

You (and others) also keep mischaracterizing the debate and focusing on cases where there’s a clear medical need for abortion, either to save the mother from injury or death, or because the fetus is deformed or otherwise unable to thrive. You, and others, keep pretending like I oppose such needed procedures, despite me having been exceedingly and repeatedly clear about it.

I’m not going to engage in a stupid linguistic joust where the objective seems to be the intentional complication and obfuscation of the topic, as if that would somehow result in a ‘win’ for you. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and an insult to all of our intelligence.

So how about we stick with the actual crux of the issue, and address it with a modicum of integrity?

I'm not playing word games.

You keep missing my point and I keep trying to explain it to you. A third trimester abortion that intentionally destroys a healthy fetus is an extreme act. That doesn't automatically make it a bad choice. It should never be done wantonly but it should be available as an option for those extremely rare times when providing the best medical care possible makes it a valid choice.

I oppose laws that rule out types of abortions or limiting when they might be done because when laws like that have been adopted the result was women dying for no good reason.

Just so we’re on the same page, the only countries that you would support, given the above, are china, guinea-bissau, North Korea, Vietnam, and apparently Canada. With the exception of Canada, every single other westernized democracy on the planet has a gestational limit for voluntary, non-medical-necessity abortions. RvW had a more generous limit than nearly all European countries.

I’ll also remind you - again - that medical need is something I 100% support. The only thing I oppose is when there is NOT a medical need AND the pregnancy is in the last trimester. And even then, I’d be quite willing to push that threshold to something higher than the 27 week mark (?) that RvW used.

Do you personally think that it should be legal and allowable for a healthy woman with no identifiable medical risk to voluntarily abort and kill her perfectly healthy fetus, when that fetus has reached a stage where it is viable outside the womb?

Does there exist a late gestational situation for which you would view abortion as immoral, and equivalent to the intentional murder of a human?

I believe it should be legal for a healthy 30 weeks pregnant women to abort her healthy fetus but I also believe she should have a damn good reason to do it. The same goes for the doctor who agrees to help her. And of course, by abort I mean terminate the pregnancy. Destroying the fetus when live birth is possible would be a violation of medical ethics unless there is a valid reason to believe a live birth would result in a worse outcome.

Let me get this straight, because your view seems unusual to me. Your position seems to be that if a woman 30 weeks along, with no medical issues, with a fetus that is healthy, decides she doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy… you support her right to terminate the pregnancy, but not to kill the baby? Meaning, you would obligate her to induce labor early and go through delivery?

I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure an induced early delivery would be more dangerous for both the baby and the mother than carrying it to term. Certainly more dangerous than aborting.

At that point in gestation, I’m pretty sure carrying to term would be the safest option if you oppose killing the baby on ethical grounds.

If that answer it too nuanced for your liking, that's too bad. Social interactions are nuanced and thoughts are sometimes vague and lack hard edges. Communication can be difficult. And on top of that, biology is messy.

Stop accusing me of lacking integrity just because my arguments don't fit your preferred pattern or because I include details you ignore when I make decisions about things. I'm not you, and I don't think like you.

I don’t accuse you of lacking integrity in this discussion because your arguments don’t fit my preferred pattern. I did so because you introduced complications that absolutely nobody at all was confused about, and which serve no apparent purpose other than to distract and obfuscate.

We

No. RvW made abortion legal up to 24 weeks (BUT states could regulate them after 12 weeks. States could completely BAN abortions after 24 weeks, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. SO, tell me again WHY RvW needed to be overturned?

 

[Elixir]

This is no game.

Actually it is.

This is women's lives we are talking about.

Yes. It’s the “talking about women’s lives” game.
I’m pretty sure all involved are well intended enough, toward pregnant women as well as their potential offspring. All that can be accomplished here is to clarify our own thoughts by expressing them, and learning how others think about it. .
Oh - and “winning” the talking about it game.

 

[Bomb#20]

Abortion on demand, to me, means that anyone can demand and get an abortion. Even if they’re not pregnant, or not female.
There is no such thing as abortion on demand afaik.

That would make it a Loretta right. You can’t have an abortion — you haven’t got a womb; where’s the fetus going to stop gestating, you going to not keep it in a box? — but you have the right to an abortion.

But the phrase “abortion on demand” has a life of its own; it should have been aborted in its first trimester.

So what phrase should replace it?

 

[Bomb#20]

So? Three days before the due date isn’t the sum total of the third trimester and crazy willy nilly isn’t the sum total of non-medical reasons. As belabored upthread, some women abort at seven months because they didn’t know they were pregnant until then.

Except we are pointing out that there's no reason to believe they actually found such cases.

No, you’re not “pointing out”; you’re just asserting as fact a theory you have no reason to believe. There is every reason to think the author found such cases. Your theory makes no psychological sense. Why the hell would a Christian pro-lifer looking to contaminate the study with a fake late-term abortion in order to propagandize for anti-abortion laws say the reason she waited until the third trimester was because she was unable to get it done earlier because of her state’s obstacles? The logical conclusion would be that we should make it easier to get first and second trimester abortions! No. That’s not how it works. A hypothetical liar-for-Jesus would say she got a third trimester abortion because her boyfriend made her, or because she couldn’t make up her mind, or she was going on vacation, or whatever. It would be an explanation that reflects badly on her reasons, not an explanation that reflects badly on our misogynistic culture. Duh!

 

[Toni]

This is no game.

Actually it is.

This is women's lives we are talking about.

Yes. It’s the “talking about women’s lives” game.
I’m pretty sure all involved are well intended enough, toward pregnant women as well as their potential offspring. All that can be accomplished here is to clarify our own thoughts by expressing them, and learning how others think about it. .
Oh - and “winning” the talking about it game.

Yeah, I don’t play.

 

[Emily Lake]

women ( and the fetus they were carrying) are indeed dying because hospitals are so afraid of running afoul of draconian anti-abortion laws ( fetal heart beat laws)

Don’t you think that loudly endorsing RvW provides excuse for letting women die, as long as it saves the occasional fetus?

I think your viewpoint on this is retarded.

Well, that's helpful.

In fact, overturning RvW is exactly what allowed Texas and other states to enact the very draconian anti-abortion legislation you decry just above.

No shit? Gee, I totally didn’t get that. I mean, I’m just over here advocating for the guidelines of RvW to be put in place as an actual federal law for funsies.

 

[Emily Lake]

You insist that I enumerate conditions under which I would oppose late term abortions without yourself doing the same thing.

No. That’s complete bullshit. I’ve been extremely and unwaveringly clear about what I oppose. It’s not mysterious, I haven’t wavered, and I’m not remotely wish-washy about it.

Seriously, what part of my oft-stated explicitly outlined position do you find confusing?