Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

It’s so strange to me that you think that we can a) reinstate RvW, which was decided in a Supreme Court case, not by any legislature and b) that RvW was some kind of nirvana best case scenario.

I’m not seeking to reinstate RvW, which was never actually a law in the first place. A prior judicial interpretation based on a stretch of the constitution was reinterpreted and found to not be supported by the constitution. I want congress to do its fucking job and make an actual law. Preferable a constitutional amendment, but actual legislation would suffice.

And yes, I do think RvW was the most reasonable and appropriate balance.

Abd that women and physicians are morally bankrupt and cannot be trusted to make medical decisions.

Not all by any means. But are you under the naive impression that no women hold LD’s view, and no dictors hold Jarhyn’s?

For the record, I think a fair number of doctors are often incredibly misguided and arrogant, and make disastrous medical decisions. That view is supported by lobotomies, hysterectomies as treatment for mental health issues, psychiatric gays conversion therapy… And the current practice of creating life-long medical issues by giving minors chemical castration drugs that prevent their natural development and cause sterility and inorgasmia, giving minors cross-sex hormones that cause physical harm and materially increase their risks, and performing medically unnecessary amputations of heathy body parts on children as a means to treat a transient anxiety about their maturing bodies.

Physicians aren’t saints anointed from on high incapable of being zealots. The list of medically supported travesties throughout history should at least give you pause.

Are you under the impression that the person's health and life at stake is anyone other than their own?

Are you pretending that this discussion is about what to do when someone’s life or health is at stake late in a pregnancy?

I will also remind you that we’re talking about two lives, and whether or not it is moral and acceptable to allow the intentional killing of one life when there is no identifiable need.

What you mean is: no need that you personally agree with.

Again, there are too many variables at play here to cover every single circumstance. This is truly best left to the girl or woman and her doctor.

 

[Emily Lake]

You aren't answering the question, though.

You're just restating your premise.

I agree that under Roe v Wade, women had a protected Right to an abortion before the point of fetal viability.

I also agree that abortions past that point were subject to limitation due to the government interests in protecting both the pregnant woman and the fetus. Basically that meant third trimester abortions were limited to medical necessity.

If that's all you want to say, mission accomplished.

But if you want to talk replacing Roe v Wade with something similar then you're going to have to grapple with the issue of defining medical necessity. What are the characteristics of a medical necessity? At what point do the complications of pregnancy become severe enough to meet that definition? Who gets to decide when that point is reached? Is it the legislature or the medical professionals? Is it the doctor treating a pregnant patient or a board of directors at the hospital where that doctor works? Can a doctor perform an abortion before it is strictly medically necessary if the preponderance of evidence indicates an abortion will be medically necessary in the near future, and performing the abortion now will almost certainly result in a better outcome for the pregnant woman?

Has reading for comprehension fallen out of fashion?

I literally want RvW instituted as a federal law covering all US states. The explicit details that you demand of me weren’t needed for RvW, why do you think they must be itemized to reinstate RvW as an actual law rather than an interpretation?

If that's all you want, then say "I want the provisions established under Roe v Wade to become Constitutional law" and stop right there. Stop posting what sounds like an argument for increased restrictions on third trimester abortions. Stop presenting that imaginary woman who wants to kill her fetus a day before her due date as though the possibility she might succeed is important to you.

But if that imaginary woman and her imperiled imaginary fetus is important then stop complaining when people focus on that part of your post.

OMFG! I have been saying that from the first interaction ages ago! Over and over and over. And for that I’ve been called names, told I want women to die, and had every possible absurdity leveled at me! Holy cow, I’ve said to you REPEATEDLY that‘s what I want and what I’m advocating for!

Elixir has repeatedly misconstrued my position as wanting a compete ban on any 3rd trimester abortion even when there’s a clear risk. Jarhyn has treated me like a monster because I believe late in the pregnancy it’s a baby, not a fetus. Even Toni has repeatedly acted as if RvW style limitations late in the game is a horrible thing and opined that politicians should have no say whatsoever.

I have provided my reasoning, my beliefs, my views over and over - and they’re views shared by over 80% of Americans, and every single fucking thing I’ve said has been picked apart and challenged to the frayed edge. You tell ME not to focus on the part that is literally the sticking point for this entire stupid thread in which nearly everyone is busy pretending they can’t tell the difference between red and blue.

I’ve been told there’s no justification for. Having legal limitations on 3rd trimester abortions, because nobody ever aborts a healthy baby that far along, and no doctor would do it anyway. So I provided evidence that while rare, they do actually happen.

I’ve been told no clinic would ever do it that far along unless there’s a clear medical need, so I provided links to a clinic that advertises that they will do them up to 39 weeks.

I’ve been told that medical guidelines would prevent late abortions without a clear medical need, but none of the medical association or medical board references so far contain any language that would actually prohibit or proscribe them in any way.

I’m not the one charging down this absurd path. I’ve been responding to baseless assertions made by others, and challenging their positions.

For what it’s worth, I respect @laughing dog position most out of the various opposing views in here. I profoundly disagree with him, but he’s consistent and hasn’t made false assertions or made claims based on wishful thinking. It’s his belief, he stands by it, and it simply is what it is. He also hasn’t called me names or assigned me malicious motivations or otherwise treated me poorly. It’s a difference of opinion, but a civil one, and I respect that.

.
Can you provide Alaska’s guidelines for abortion as laid out by your medical board, and illustrate how those guidelines would prevent an on-demand 30 week abortion with no medical need for someone with Jarhyn’s views?

Sure.

It's right here.

That doesn’t support your claim at all. Did you actually read it?

Yes.

Did you read all of it or just that one page?

I get the feeling you want everything to be spelled out in excruciating detail so you can nitpick it to pieces. But laws and regulations don't do that, they state things in simple terms and people argue interpretations in court. Then people argue over the court's rulings until they get further clarification, either from the courts or from lawmakers passing an updated version of the original law.

If you want to take a deeper dive into it, have at it. My point wasn't that every single possibility has been considered and contingency has a plan, it was that abortion is regulated in Alaska despite what you apparently believe.

I read multiple pages. Alaska requires informed consent, with additional stipulations around consent for minors, and prohibits partial-birth abortions. I see nothing in there at all that would prevent or prohibit an on-demand abortion the week before delivery without a medical need.

If it’s there, then either I’m blind or it’s written in invisible ink. If you can find the language that does what you claim it does, please share it.

I don’t need everything spelled out for me. I do, however, expect people to back up their assertions. And in this case, the assertion is a fundamental aspect of the argument against RvW limitations in the 3rd trimester, so I think it’s important that people can demonstrate that the guidelines they assume exist actually do exist.

 

[laughing dog]

You and others have strongly asserted that there exist overarching medical guidelines from a comprehensive governing body, which would prohibit a doctor from aborting a later term fetus that is healthy, with a mother that is healthy.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any guidelines that do that.

Coming from a supporter of RVW that straw man is so epically ironic that it cannot be taken seriously as stated.

My point was that your tradeoff between “convenience “ vs “life” ignores quite a bit in its analysis.

From what I can tell, you are willing to accept any amount of harm to pregnant women and the resulting child who want a “medically unnecessary abortion” to reduce the unmeasured but small number of such abortions.

That staggers what is left of my feeble brain.

It only staggers your brain because you aren’t reading, or you are ignoring.

More irony from the it’s ok to snuff life in the 1st and Second trimester for reason X but not the 3rd.

A developing fetus really is a spectrum. At the start of the pregnancy, it’s a lump of cells, but is not remotely fully formed - it’s the ingredients for bread dumped in a bowl, unmixed, and the yeast has barely begun to grow. Partway through, it’s developed to something that is identifiable as a human form, with the major components started but not completed, and if removed from the womb it won’t survive - it’s dough, and it;s risen, but it isn’t bread. In the last trimester (roughly), anyone who looks at it will see a baby, it has all the components of a human, nothing is missing, and they’re in the process of finishing. If removed from the womb, it has a greater than coin-flip likelihood to survive, and that likelihood grows every single day in a meaningful way - it’s bread, identifiably and clearly bread. The center might still be a bit soft, the crust might not be as firm as desired, but it’s edible bread.

The fact that you think there is no meaningful difference is baffling, and I
In order to do do, I need to know which term “non-medical” or “harm” you don’t understand.

I don’t know what the fuck you mean by either. Give me the definition you’re working with for each.

Really? You don’t know that
1) when “non” precedes a noun it means not, so-non-medical means not medical, and

2) harm means injury - physical, psychological/mental, financial or any other type of damage?

Also, a fetus is not a baby.

At some point, it most definite Is. Pretending otherwise is willful blindness and I don’t buy it.

A fetus does not magically become a baby once it enters the 3rd trimester.

 

[Emily Lake]

You really think that legislators are capable as a group of determining when it is ok to terminate a pregnancy?

Do you really think I’m suggesting positions review every case? We’re politicians reviewing every case when RvW was in place? Are politicians reviewing every case in the rest of the westernized liberal world, where gestational limits without medical necessity are in place, and have been for half a century?

It sure is easy to craft killer counterpoints to positions I don’t hold.

Keep in mind that there are actually legislators who believe that if a woman is really raised her body just shuts down any pregnancy

What point do you think you’re making with this? How does this have any bearing on what I’m advocating for?

Some people at the far end of unreasonable hold stupid views. That doesn’t suggest that we must rush full-speed to the compete other end of unreasonable views in response.

Do you really think you could determine at exactly what stage of development it is no longer permissible to terminate a pregnancy?

We don’t need an exact stage. If you’d read anything I’d posted with an open mind and intent to understand, you would know that. All we need do is find the point where the medical community generally agrees that a fetus is viable (something already in existence - at about 24 weeks), and add another week or two as a safety margin.

You’re falling into the fallacy of the beard. You can’t determine exactly how many chin hairs constitute a beard… and yet we all agree that beards exist.

Or what degree of disability or harm to the mother make it permissible?

What do you think constitutes harm? Have you forgotten that my position allows quite clearly for risk of death it injury to the mother to be prioritized?

You are suggesting that legislators enact laws which mandate limits on abortions.

You are suggesting that a group largely comprised of men, almost none of whom have any training in medicine, and some of whom have demonstrated an appalling lack of basic common knowledge about female anatomy, pregnancy and childbirth and miscarriage are better positioned to establish a framework that will limit the medical care a woman may receive, despite what she and her doctor think is appropriate

Do you not realize that exactly that scenario is causing severe medical harm and death, and occasionally arrest and imprisonment of women who miscarry?

Do you imagine that no women died from draconian anti abortion laws during third trimester miscarriages fir those same reasons during RvW?

You are so afraid some woman somewhere is going to have an abortion that you personally disagree with her having that you are willing to put at risk the lives of every fertile woman on US soil.

Who gave you that right?

It’s very strange to me that so many people here have taken the stance that RvW is horrible, and that reinstating it will kill tons of women.

To quote someone posting in this thread, "Has reading for comprehension fallen out of fashion?"

People arguing against legislators* enacting laws that mandate limits on abortions are not saying Roe v Wade was horrible or that reinstating it will kill tons of women. Quite the opposite in fact.


*(a group largely comprised of men, almost none of whom have any training in medicine, and some of whom have demonstrated an appalling lack of basic common knowledge about female anatomy, pregnancy and childbirth and miscarriage)

If that is true, as you seem to believe… then can you enlighten me as to why so many are so vehemently opposed to me wanting a federal fucking law that is exactly the same as RvW? Why do we have some hundred pages or more of me being treated like shit for holding an eminently reasonable view?

 

[Emily Lake]

It’s so strange to me that you think that we can a) reinstate RvW, which was decided in a Supreme Court case, not by any legislature and b) that RvW was some kind of nirvana best case scenario.

I’m not seeking to reinstate RvW, which was never actually a law in the first place. A prior judicial interpretation based on a stretch of the constitution was reinterpreted and found to not be supported by the constitution. I want congress to do its fucking job and make an actual law. Preferable a constitutional amendment, but actual legislation would suffice.

And yes, I do think RvW was the most reasonable and appropriate balance.

Abd that women and physicians are morally bankrupt and cannot be trusted to make medical decisions.

Not all by any means. But are you under the naive impression that no women hold LD’s view, and no dictors hold Jarhyn’s?

For the record, I think a fair number of doctors are often incredibly misguided and arrogant, and make disastrous medical decisions. That view is supported by lobotomies, hysterectomies as treatment for mental health issues, psychiatric gays conversion therapy… And the current practice of creating life-long medical issues by giving minors chemical castration drugs that prevent their natural development and cause sterility and inorgasmia, giving minors cross-sex hormones that cause physical harm and materially increase their risks, and performing medically unnecessary amputations of heathy body parts on children as a means to treat a transient anxiety about their maturing bodies.

Physicians aren’t saints anointed from on high incapable of being zealots. The list of medically supported travesties throughout history should at least give you pause.

Are you under the impression that the person's health and life at stake is anyone other than their own?

Are you pretending that this discussion is about what to do when someone’s life or health is at stake late in a pregnancy?

I will also remind you that we’re talking about two lives, and whether or not it is moral and acceptable to allow the intentional killing of one life when there is no identifiable need.

What you mean is: no need that you personally agree with.

What I mean is exactly what I’ve said over and over and over and over. A medical risk to the life or physical well-being of the mother, or a material abnormality of the fetus that makes it unlikely the baby would survive or thrive.

Don’t invent things about my view that I have not said or indicated in any fashion.

Again, there are too many variables at play here to cover every single circumstance. This is truly best left to the girl or woman and her doctor.

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

 

[Emily Lake]

You and others have strongly asserted that there exist overarching medical guidelines from a comprehensive governing body, which would prohibit a doctor from aborting a later term fetus that is healthy, with a mother that is healthy.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any guidelines that do that.

From what I can tell, you are willing to accept any amount of harm to pregnant women and the resulting child who want a “medically unnecessary abortion” to reduce the unmeasured but small number of such abortions.

In order to do do, I need to know which term “non-medical” or “harm” you don’t understand.

I don’t know what the fuck you mean by either. Give me the definition you’re working with for each.

Really? You don’t know that
1) when “non” precedes a noun it means not, so-non-medical means not medical, and

2) harm means injury - physical, psychological/mental, financial or any other type of damage?

I have repeatedly and unambiguously stated that a risk to the mother’s life or physical well-being is a fully sufficient reason for a 3rd T abortion.

You stated that I’m willing to accept any amount if harm done to the mother’s life or baby for medically unnecessary abortions.

At least now you’ve actually elaborated on what you mean.

I know you disagree, but I will stand by my position: mental distress at giving birth is not sufficient justification for murder, nor is financial stress. The mother is not at all required to keep the baby, she can give it up for adoption without ever seeing it if she desires. I simply oppose murder… and late in the pregnancy, I absolutely view it as murder when there isn’t a medical need for it.

Also, a fetus is not a baby.

At some point, it most definite Is. Pretending otherwise is willful blindness and I don’t buy it.

A fetus does not magically become a baby once it enters the 3rd trimester.

Magically? No. Pragmatically? Yes. If you want to discuss which week is the most appropriate dividing line, I’ll even give you a couple of weeks. But at some point around week 26, there’s an 80% likelihood that a prematurely delivered baby will survive without significant issues. By week 28, it’s over 90%. 27 weeks is the start of the 3rd trimester. I completely fail to see how killing a fetus that has about an 85% chance of living without significant issues if delivered prematurely is in any fashion moral or acceptable. When the survival chance it that high, there is no meaningful justification for saying it’s not a baby.

 

[Arctish]

If that's all you want, then say "I want the provisions established under Roe v Wade to become Constitutional law" and stop right there. Stop posting what sounds like an argument for increased restrictions on third trimester abortions. Stop presenting that imaginary woman who wants to kill her fetus a day before her due date as though the possibility she might succeed is important to you.

But if that imaginary woman and her imperiled imaginary fetus is important then stop complaining when people focus on that part of your post.

OMFG! I have been saying that from the first interaction ages ago! Over and over and over. And for that I’ve been called names, told I want women to die, and had every possible absurdity leveled at me! Holy cow, I’ve said to you REPEATEDLY that‘s what I want and what I’m advocating for!

You keep repeating things but you aren't explaining them.

When I asked you what rules or guidelines you would suggest to keep the pregnant psychopath and the evil doctor from aborting her healthy baby a day before it's due to be born, you just got cranky and went right back to restating your opinion that aborting before the 24th week is fine but aborting after that is wrong unless it is medically necessary.

Is there a state that in your opinion does a better job of protecting fetusus than most others? Is there a nation that has a low maternal death rate and almost no late term abortions and you think we should emulate them? Is there any example of a state or a nation doing things right, or at least more right than what is currently happening in the US?

Apparently you don't trust doctors enough to allow them to decide when an abortion is warranted. If that's the case, then tell us who you think should have final say and how you propose they be positioned so that they can make that call in a timely manner.

What are your suggestions?

Elixir has repeatedly misconstrued my position as wanting a compete ban on any 3rd trimester abortion even when there’s a clear risk. Jarhyn has treated me like a monster because I believe late in the pregnancy it’s a baby, not a fetus. Even Toni has repeatedly acted as if RvW style limitations late in the game is a horrible thing and opined that politicians should have no say whatsoever.

I have provided my reasoning, my beliefs, my views over and over - and they’re views shared by over 80% of Americans, and every single fucking thing I’ve said has been picked apart and challenged to the frayed edge. You tell ME not to focus on the part that is literally the sticking point for this entire stupid thread in which nearly everyone is busy pretending they can’t tell the difference between red and blue.

I’ve been told there’s no justification for. Having legal limitations on 3rd trimester abortions, because nobody ever aborts a healthy baby that far along, and no doctor would do it anyway. So I provided evidence that while rare, they do actually happen.

Who told you that there is no justification for having legal limits on third trimester abortions? Can you quote them?

I think you tend to see things as black or white with very little allowances for shades of gray, and that's affecting how you interpret what people are saying about the inherent dangers of strict regulations, draconian laws, and absolute barriers to third trimester abortions. I see people saying there is justification for having rules and guidelines based on medical ethics and upheld by medical boards that regulate the practice of medicine in their states

BUT

those rules and regulations need to be flexible because not every medical condition is just like the textbook example, and a hard "no" on abortions increases the chances of women dying for no good reason.

I see people saying we need to rely on certified medical professionals because they are the ones with the knowledge base and skill set needed to decide when it is medically necessary to abort a fetus, and not rely on politicians because most of them know fuck-all about pregnancy and women's health.

I’ve been told no clinic would ever do it that far along unless there’s a clear medical need, so I provided links to a clinic that advertises that they will do them up to 39 weeks.

Please repost that link. I missed it earlier.

 

[Toni]

It’s so strange to me that you think that we can a) reinstate RvW, which was decided in a Supreme Court case, not by any legislature and b) that RvW was some kind of nirvana best case scenario.

I’m not seeking to reinstate RvW, which was never actually a law in the first place. A prior judicial interpretation based on a stretch of the constitution was reinterpreted and found to not be supported by the constitution. I want congress to do its fucking job and make an actual law. Preferable a constitutional amendment, but actual legislation would suffice.

And yes, I do think RvW was the most reasonable and appropriate balance.

Abd that women and physicians are morally bankrupt and cannot be trusted to make medical decisions.

Not all by any means. But are you under the naive impression that no women hold LD’s view, and no dictors hold Jarhyn’s?

For the record, I think a fair number of doctors are often incredibly misguided and arrogant, and make disastrous medical decisions. That view is supported by lobotomies, hysterectomies as treatment for mental health issues, psychiatric gays conversion therapy… And the current practice of creating life-long medical issues by giving minors chemical castration drugs that prevent their natural development and cause sterility and inorgasmia, giving minors cross-sex hormones that cause physical harm and materially increase their risks, and performing medically unnecessary amputations of heathy body parts on children as a means to treat a transient anxiety about their maturing bodies.

Physicians aren’t saints anointed from on high incapable of being zealots. The list of medically supported travesties throughout history should at least give you pause.

Are you under the impression that the person's health and life at stake is anyone other than their own?

Are you pretending that this discussion is about what to do when someone’s life or health is at stake late in a pregnancy?

I will also remind you that we’re talking about two lives, and whether or not it is moral and acceptable to allow the intentional killing of one life when there is no identifiable need.

What you mean is: no need that you personally agree with.

What I mean is exactly what I’ve said over and over and over and over. A medical risk to the life or physical well-being of the mother, or a material abnormality of the fetus that makes it unlikely the baby would survive or thrive.

Don’t invent things about my view that I have not said or indicated in any fashion.

Again, there are too many variables at play here to cover every single circumstance. This is truly best left to the girl or woman and her doctor.

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

That is impossible.

 

[Jarhyn]

Who told you that there is no justification for having legal limits on third trimester abortions

Personally, I don't think there's any justification for having legal limits on abortion -- that is, beyond "it has to be done by a licensed doctor in a clean facility according to medical best practice."

Just like I think there should be no legal limits on recreational drug use beyond "if you're going to use a substance which impacts decision making or increases aggression significantly or both, it must be taken under supervision in a private location."

If faced between the alternatives of forcing a baby to be born prematurely or an aborted fetal corpse, I think I'm on the side of "corpse".

"Why would you do this to me, subjecting me to being a preemie on purpose? Either do the best you can or do nothing. I wish I had never been born."

I still have yet to see someone explain why exactly we NEED those humans, when I don't acknowledge that the world needs humans in the first place, especially not to even the extent of conscripting a woman for 3 weeks to finish that pregnancy.

To me, "first, do no harm" requires in some measure "not knowingly hobbling someone on their very first steps into life by way of a forced premature birth, if it can be avoided via the consent of the 'mother'."

Secondly, there's that whole "psychopaths reproducing" issue. It's good when that doesn't happen, and literally the ONLY time we ever see this outcome happen ethically -- when they make decisions like to have such an abortion all on their own. I am, I think quite justifiably angry that anyone would seek to prevent such an abortion.

I do not accept that any such regulation is sane beyond the regulations that specifically limit the authority over doctors to medical boards rather than state entities.

Much like all of Emily's issues, if she wants to reduce something she doesn't like, the solution is NOT to regulate it the way she wants to. The solution is instead to regulate the context to keep the consequences contained and any dangers mitigated, and to present education and a social environment which makes being a parent and/or giving birth as unburdensome as possible.

Doing anything more than giving medical boards legal force (which they already have through leverage over licensure) and letting it be "between a doctor and their patient in a clean facility meeting standards of safe medical care with regards to the patient" is going to get people killed, but it's also going to get psychopaths alive'd and babies maimed or people conscripted for gestation.

And I keep asking what does that violation of an adult human get us as a society?

And, I will note, whatever answer is produced has to be an answer an AI or a perfectly logical hyper-intelligent psychopath who entirely lacks human emotion beyond logic-sense would be capable of reading and saying "oh, yes, that's true".

Perhaps you will consider this an unreasonable standard, however this is the standard that we should expect for any demand that goes so far as to impose our will unilaterally on another.

 

[ZiprHead]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Who in this scenario determines medical necessity?

 

[Bomb#20]

L

"It is the law" is not an answer; "is" does not answer "ought" in that way.

What do you suggest should be done that isn't being done now? [Question of OUGHT]

Federal law guarantee unquestioned access to abortion in the first 2 trimesters, and limited to medical necessity in the last trimester. [Response about IS]

I seriously don’t think I can be any clearer than that.

I return to my previous point, "It is the law" is not an answer; "is" does not answer "ought" in that way.

I don't think I can be any clearer than that as to why your response was not responsive

She didn’t say anything about what the law IS. She answered a question about what the law should be with a statement of her opinion of what the law OUGHT to be.

Perhaps you fantasized that you read “guarantees” when you saw the word “guarantee”.

No, she made a declarative statement about what the law IS.

This is not the first time both you and her have used IS when you are asked for OUGHT.

Since you’re doubling down on your epic failure to read, this is the point where I should challenge you to quote me, but we both know you won’t.

"Guarantees" is something the law is doing. Whether it should "guarantee" is a separate matter, and what was asked.

So you understand that. Excellent. Now why are you so certain of your own infallibility that you can’t be bothered to reread the part of your own post where you quoted Emily, and check which one she wrote? How ever did you acquire that overflow of arrogance?

 

[Emily Lake]

If that's all you want, then say "I want the provisions established under Roe v Wade to become Constitutional law" and stop right there. Stop posting what sounds like an argument for increased restrictions on third trimester abortions. Stop presenting that imaginary woman who wants to kill her fetus a day before her due date as though the possibility she might succeed is important to you.

But if that imaginary woman and her imperiled imaginary fetus is important then stop complaining when people focus on that part of your post.

OMFG! I have been saying that from the first interaction ages ago! Over and over and over. And for that I’ve been called names, told I want women to die, and had every possible absurdity leveled at me! Holy cow, I’ve said to you REPEATEDLY that‘s what I want and what I’m advocating for!

You keep repeating things but you aren't explaining them.

When I asked you what rules or guidelines you would suggest to keep the pregnant psychopath and the evil doctor from aborting her healthy baby a day before it's due to be born, you just got cranky and went right back to restating your opinion that aborting before the 24th week is fine but aborting after that is wrong unless it is medically necessary.

Is there a state that in your opinion does a better job of protecting fetusus than most others? Is there a nation that has a low maternal death rate and almost no late term abortions and you think we should emulate them? Is there any example of a state or a nation doing things right, or at least more right than what is currently happening in the US?

Apparently you don't trust doctors enough to allow them to decide when an abortion is warranted. If that's the case, then tell us who you think should have final say and how you propose they be positioned so that they can make that call in a timely manner.

What are your suggestions?

Elixir has repeatedly misconstrued my position as wanting a compete ban on any 3rd trimester abortion even when there’s a clear risk. Jarhyn has treated me like a monster because I believe late in the pregnancy it’s a baby, not a fetus. Even Toni has repeatedly acted as if RvW style limitations late in the game is a horrible thing and opined that politicians should have no say whatsoever.

I have provided my reasoning, my beliefs, my views over and over - and they’re views shared by over 80% of Americans, and every single fucking thing I’ve said has been picked apart and challenged to the frayed edge. You tell ME not to focus on the part that is literally the sticking point for this entire stupid thread in which nearly everyone is busy pretending they can’t tell the difference between red and blue.

I’ve been told there’s no justification for. Having legal limitations on 3rd trimester abortions, because nobody ever aborts a healthy baby that far along, and no doctor would do it anyway. So I provided evidence that while rare, they do actually happen.

Who told you that there is no justification for having legal limits on third trimester abortions? Can you quote them?

I think you tend to see things as black or white with very little allowances for shades of gray, and that's affecting how you interpret what people are saying about the inherent dangers of strict regulations, draconian laws, and absolute barriers to third trimester abortions. I see people saying there is justification for having rules and guidelines based on medical ethics and upheld by medical boards that regulate the practice of medicine in their states

BUT

those rules and regulations need to be flexible because not every medical condition is just like the textbook example, and a hard "no" on abortions increases the chances of women dying for no good reason.

I see people saying we need to rely on certified medical professionals because they are the ones with the knowledge base and skill set needed to decide when it is medically necessary to abort a fetus, and not rely on politicians because most of them know fuck-all about pregnancy and women's health.

I’ve been told no clinic would ever do it that far along unless there’s a clear medical need, so I provided links to a clinic that advertises that they will do them up to 39 weeks.

Please repost that link. I missed it earlier.

You know what? I’m just plain tired of this game. You complained about me getting into weeds, and said that me stating clearly (for the thousandth time) that I want a federal law that matches the standards of RvW. But you’ve immediately turned right around and demanded that I have to be able to specify exactly and in detail how that would be enforced. I’m not a damned lawyer or lawmaker. I don’t know, but my lack of specific knowledge outside my wheelhouse doesn’t negate it in any way, and it’s frankly stupid to make such a demand.

How was it enforced under RvW? Do that. How is it enforced in other countries with similar regulations? Do that if you prefer.

You accuse me of not trusting doctors to make a determination if medical need… which is false, invented by you, and wrong. Defining limits that preclude an action when there is no medical need doesn’t require me, who is not a doctor, to provide detailed lists of diagnoses. All that is required is that a medical need exists.

How did doctors make a determination under RvW/. Do that. How do doctors make a determination in states or countries with similar regulations? Do that if you prefer.

You might be more civil about it… but you’re doing the exact same thing that Elixir and Toni and Jarhyn and others have done - which is why this stupid thread is this long.

You are in effect arguing against RvW. Not for any good reason I can’t identify, but merely because I personally, who am neither a lawyer nor a legislator nor a doctor, am unable to give you a perfect exact and explicit answer for every possible complication you can imagine. It’s either disingenuous or intentionally obstructive. I don’t know. Maybe there;s some other explanation, but at this point I can’t figure one out. It’s some bizarre obstructionist argument for the sake of causing division and conflict… despite the fact that you give lip service to wanting the same thing.

How about we talk about some policy that you support and advocate, hmm? You give me the outlines of what you think would be a good solution to some problem, and then I can spend several hundred posts picking apart every thread, coming up with dozens of questions that require you to go get a law degree to answer, and demand that you solve every possible imagined problem that might possibly arise. And when your temper starts to fray, I’ll declare that you see everything in black and white, and that you lack the reading comprehension to understand that when I call you a monster and a nazi and a fascist who wants people to die, you just are too stubborn to understand that I agree with you but need more fucking details.

RvW worked very well when it was in place. It was overturned, not because it was revoked as a law or because it was bad policy, but because it was based on a very thinly supported interpretation that left it vulnerable. An actual real law, created and passed by a legislative body, would be much more secure. Is it going to be easy to get passed? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Would that make it perfectly secure from challenge? No, but it will shift the burden necessary to overturn it. And just because it might still be challenged doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.

Here’s a very straightforward question for you and everyone else: do you think RvW was a good standard for abortion that should be reinstated as a federal law? If not, why do you oppose it?

 

[Emily Lake]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

That is impossible.

Why on earth do you think it’s impossible to do a thing we already did, and that worked consistently for half a century?

 

[Emily Lake]

Who told you that there is no justification for having legal limits on third trimester abortions

Personally, I don't think there's any justification for having legal limits on abortion -- that is, beyond "it has to be done by a licensed doctor in a clean facility according to medical best practice."

Just like I think there should be no legal limits on recreational drug use beyond "if you're going to use a substance which impacts decision making or increases aggression significantly or both, it must be taken under supervision in a private location."

If faced between the alternatives of forcing a baby to be born prematurely or an aborted fetal corpse, I think I'm on the side of "corpse".

"Why would you do this to me, subjecting me to being a preemie on purpose? Either do the best you can or do nothing. I wish I had never been born."

I still have yet to see someone explain why exactly we NEED those humans, when I don't acknowledge that the world needs humans in the first place, especially not to even the extent of conscripting a woman for 3 weeks to finish that pregnancy.

To me, "first, do no harm" requires in some measure "not knowingly hobbling someone on their very first steps into life by way of a forced premature birth, if it can be avoided via the consent of the 'mother'."

Secondly, there's that whole "psychopaths reproducing" issue. It's good when that doesn't happen, and literally the ONLY time we ever see this outcome happen ethically -- when they make decisions like to have such an abortion all on their own. I am, I think quite justifiably angry that anyone would seek to prevent such an abortion.

I do not accept that any such regulation is sane beyond the regulations that specifically limit the authority over doctors to medical boards rather than state entities.

Much like all of Emily's issues, if she wants to reduce something she doesn't like, the solution is NOT to regulate it the way she wants to. The solution is instead to regulate the context to keep the consequences contained and any dangers mitigated, and to present education and a social environment which makes being a parent and/or giving birth as unburdensome as possible.

Doing anything more than giving medical boards legal force (which they already have through leverage over licensure) and letting it be "between a doctor and their patient in a clean facility meeting standards of safe medical care with regards to the patient" is going to get people killed, but it's also going to get psychopaths alive'd and babies maimed or people conscripted for gestation.

And I keep asking what does that violation of an adult human get us as a society?

And, I will note, whatever answer is produced has to be an answer an AI or a perfectly logical hyper-intelligent psychopath who entirely lacks human emotion beyond logic-sense would be capable of reading and saying "oh, yes, that's true".

Perhaps you will consider this an unreasonable standard, however this is the standard that we should expect for any demand that goes so far as to impose our will unilaterally on another.

Your entire post is unreasonable. Your positions and beliefs, in their entirety, are antisocial, anti-human, and irrational.

 

[Emily Lake]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Who in this scenario determines medical necessity?

Doctors, you nitwit.

I have answered this multiple times. This is not difficult. Requiring that there be a medical need doesn’t mean that anyone other than a doctor is making that determination. I swear this entire discussion is willful obtuseness. I have a hard time believing that so many people complete lack basic reasoning skills.

 

[Emily Lake]

How ever did you acquire that overflow of arrogance?

My money is on drugs. It’s the arrogance commonly found in high school stoners who have a thought while high and are convinced that they’ve had a new idea that nobody else has ever thought of before, and simultaneously believe that their idea is perfect and infallible.

I see this same mindset in my family and acquaintances who live in a permanent state of THC induced dissociation and are never sober.

Perhaps I’m wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Who in this scenario determines medical necessity?

Doctors, you nitwit.

I have answered this multiple times. This is not difficult. Requiring that there be a medical need doesn’t mean that anyone other than a doctor is making that determination. I swear this entire discussion is willful obtuseness. I have a hard time believing that so many people complete lack basic reasoning skills.

Use your vast reasoning abilities to explain to this sea of morons how that is different than
1) the guidelines from either the AMA or the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that are written by doctors that you reject as insufficient, and
2) the principle that the decision should be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor that you dismiss.

 

[Emily Lake]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Who in this scenario determines medical necessity?

Doctors, you nitwit.

I have answered this multiple times. This is not difficult. Requiring that there be a medical need doesn’t mean that anyone other than a doctor is making that determination. I swear this entire discussion is willful obtuseness. I have a hard time believing that so many people complete lack basic reasoning skills.

Use your vast reasoning abilities to explain to this sea of morons how that is different than
1) the guidelines from either the AMA or the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that are written by doctors that you reject as insufficient, and

For the gajillionth time… none of the “guidelines” include any language whatsoever that require a medical necessity in the late term. Appealing to nonexistent guidelines as a sufficient safeguard is absurd.

2) the principle that the decision should be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor that you dismiss.

If the doctor has your view and the woman has Jarhyn’s, then you both wouldn’t even blink at killing a baby the day before it’s due.

Hell, if both the doctor and mother have Jarhyn’s view, they might well decide it’s okay to kill an inconvenient toddler because they aren’t people.


This isn’t hard. Require a medical necessity by law; rely on doctors to determine whether medical necessity is present and document the diagnose that supports it.

Why do you think this is an insurmountable ask?

 

[TomC]

This isn’t hard. Require a medical necessity by law; rely on doctors to determine whether medical necessity is present and document the diagnose that supports it.

I don't trust the idiots that write the legislation to have a grasp of any particular situation.
For instance, why would I believe that some idiot running for office knows enough about "medical necessity" to define it for everyone? I don't think so at all. And I'm convinced that the majority of them will keep up the "crueler than thou" competition currently raging in US government for the sake of wealth and power.

I agree that a few late term abortions are morally repugnant, but I don't think that government interference in women's reproductive care is a solution.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Who in this scenario determines medical necessity?

Doctors, you nitwit.

I have answered this multiple times. This is not difficult. Requiring that there be a medical need doesn’t mean that anyone other than a doctor is making that determination. I swear this entire discussion is willful obtuseness. I have a hard time believing that so many people complete lack basic reasoning skills.

Use your vast reasoning abilities to explain to this sea of morons how that is different than
1) the guidelines from either the AMA or the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that are written by doctors that you reject as insufficient, and

For the gajillionth time… none of the “guidelines” include any language whatsoever that require a medical necessity in the late term. Appealing to nonexistent guidelines as a sufficient safeguard is absurd.

2) the principle that the decision should be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor that you dismiss.

If the doctor has your view and the woman has Jarhyn’s, then you both wouldn’t even blink at killing a baby the day before it’s due.

Hell, if both the doctor and mother have Jarhyn’s view, they might well decide it’s okay to kill an inconvenient toddler because they aren’t people.

The obvious point that your genius reasoning missed is that you advocate for doctors determining medical necessity while simultaneously denying their expertise in constructing guidelines or making medically necessary judgments.