Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though.

What do you think it should be called when a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant goes into a clinic and says “I don’t want this, get it out of me” when there’s nothing wrong with the fetus at that stage of development, and nothing wrong with the mother? If you insist that abortion also means miscarriage, how do you propose to disambiguate the two scenarios in a way that laypeople can understand?

 

[laughing dog]

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I question this claim. Here is results of a Gallup opinion poll (from 2018, so prior to the SC RvW decision). Is your claim supported within this survey data?

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

The link to the 8 year old survey does not work.

 

[Toni]

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I question this claim. Here is results of a Gallup opinion poll (from 2018, so prior to the SC RvW decision). Is your claim supported within this survey data?

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

You’re correct: I actually did not type what I meant to type: distracted typing is a huge fault of mine. My apologies.

What I meant to type and did not was that a lot of people who are vocal about opposing third trimester abortions also oppose second trimester and even first trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother and sometimes in cases of rape and incest.

Third trimester abortions are just easier to go after.

 

[Toni]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though.

What do you think it should be called when a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant goes into a clinic and says “I don’t want this, get it out of me” when there’s nothing wrong with the fetus at that stage of development, and nothing wrong with the mother? If you insist that abortion also means miscarriage, how do you propose to disambiguate the two scenarios in a way that laypeople can understand?

Education. Just as womb really means uterus and every adult and person over the age of 12 should be familiar with the word, miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

 

[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.

If they actually made guidelines that restricted 3rd T abortions, and those guidelines were universally applicable, I would be fine with it. But they haven’t done so, and such guidelines don’t exist that do that.

Right now, the ‘judgement’ of a doctor with your beliefs and a patient with Elixir’s would be to kill a baby two days before it’s due if that’s what the mother wants, even if both the mother and baby are perfectly healthy.

That means you don't really trust the professional judgment of physicians. Which is fine. But then you should not expect anyone to seriously take your position of you want doctors to medical necessity very seriously because you have being logically inconsistent.

 

[thebeave]

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I question this claim. Here is results of a Gallup opinion poll (from 2018, so prior to the SC RvW decision). Is your claim supported within this survey data?

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

The link to the 8 year old survey does not work.

Sorry, my bad. I updated my previous post. The 8 year old survery is now viewable there. Also, here:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx

 

[Emily Lake]

@Bomb#20 , do you really believe that those pushing opposition to “abortion on demand” are trying to inform people of mothers’ willingness to pay for medical services?

@Elixir , do you really believe that when people in this thread is the term when discussing 3rd T abortions without medical necessity, that’s what we’re doing?

Constantly trying to limit clear language so it becomes impossible to discuss the topic is very Orwellian.

 

[Emily Lake]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

Are you sure? Or are you assuming it because it’s what you believe ought to be the case?

 

[Emily Lake]

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

Do you think when abortion rights activists adopted the abortion on demand phrase as their slogan in the seventies, they meant for a bombed or high customer to get one no questions asked?

Meanings change in living languages, and context is important.

"Don we now our gay apparel" didn't used to mean we're getting ready to meet our Grindr hookups.

And interestingly… context and reading for comprehension remain very powerful skills.

 

[Emily Lake]

if using “abortion” to mean “having no laws limiting access”…

So you feel that it needs a qualifier?
To differentiate this abortion from that abortion?
If I added the word “accessible”, do you think “accessible abortion” would be any less horrifying to the public I was trying to get off women’s case? (I doubt it).
I think the word accessible should be considered implied, as it is with “appendectomy” or any other common, accessible medical procedure.

Oh for the love of god. “On demand” is not a qualifier! It isn’t there to differentiate different subsets of abortions. It’s not a bloody adjective! “Abortion” is the name of a medical procedure. “Abortion on demand” is the name of a government policy, the policy of not getting involved. If you want to get rid of the phrase “abortion on demand” you’re going to need a new name for that policy if you want to go on advocating it. “Abortion” is a nutty term to use for the policy because it’s a procedure, not a policy, and because it will make everyone who uses it that way confusing and everyone who hears it used that way confused, and because it will be rhetorically good for prolifers and bad for women. And the majority isn’t against the government-not-involved policy because the word “demand” is horrifying but because killing beings that seem indistinguishable from preemies in the nicu is horrifying. The public is going to call the hands-off policy something unless people like you stop advocating it, which isn’t going to happen, so your only options are to come up with a better name for your preferred policy and get people to use it, or to have the public go on calling it “abortion on demand”. Pick one.

Good luck. I’ve asked for alternative terms to represent the situation under discussion a few times, and have yet to get a response.

 

[laughing dog]

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I question this claim. Here is results of a Gallup opinion poll (from 2018, so prior to the SC RvW decision). Is your claim supported within this survey data?

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

The link to the 8 year old survey does not work.

Sorry, my bad. I updated my previous post. The 8 year old survery is now viewable there. Also, here:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx

Pretty interesting. Ignoring the bias in the poll (referring to the fetus as a child), 48% of the respondents said a 3rd trimester abortion should not be legal in the case of rape, and 52% said a 3rd trimester should not be legal in the case of the fetus having a life threatening illness.

 

[laughing dog]

@Bomb#20 , do you really believe that those pushing opposition to “abortion on demand” are trying to inform people of mothers’ willingness to pay for medical services?

@Elixir , do you really believe that when people in this thread is the term when discussing 3rd T abortions without medical necessity, that’s what we’re doing?

Constantly trying to limit clear language so it becomes impossible to discuss the topic is very Orwellian.

You mean like referring to a fetus as a child?

 

[Toni]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

Are you sure? Or are you assuming it because it’s what you believe ought to be the case?

I’m pretty sure that medical professionals are mighty picky about not performing medical procedures on anyone who has any kind of intoxicating substance in their system, among other medications, drugs and substances. Even aspirin. There is usually a list of things you cannot take prior to surgery. Emergencies are different but even then, they try hard to be informed of what you might have taken in order to ensure best possible outcomes.

 

[Toni]

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

Do you think when abortion rights activists adopted the abortion on demand phrase as their slogan in the seventies, they meant for a bombed or high customer to get one no questions asked?

Meanings change in living languages, and context is important.

"Don we now our gay apparel" didn't used to mean we're getting ready to meet our Grindr hookups.

And interestingly… context and reading for comprehension remain very powerful skills.

They do. That does not mean that people now avoid using certain words or even names because of the change in popular meaning or adoption of slang.

 

[Toni]

if using “abortion” to mean “having no laws limiting access”…

So you feel that it needs a qualifier?
To differentiate this abortion from that abortion?
If I added the word “accessible”, do you think “accessible abortion” would be any less horrifying to the public I was trying to get off women’s case? (I doubt it).
I think the word accessible should be considered implied, as it is with “appendectomy” or any other common, accessible medical procedure.

Oh for the love of god. “On demand” is not a qualifier! It isn’t there to differentiate different subsets of abortions. It’s not a bloody adjective! “Abortion” is the name of a medical procedure. “Abortion on demand” is the name of a government policy, the policy of not getting involved. If you want to get rid of the phrase “abortion on demand” you’re going to need a new name for that policy if you want to go on advocating it. “Abortion” is a nutty term to use for the policy because it’s a procedure, not a policy, and because it will make everyone who uses it that way confusing and everyone who hears it used that way confused, and because it will be rhetorically good for prolifers and bad for women. And the majority isn’t against the government-not-involved policy because the word “demand” is horrifying but because killing beings that seem indistinguishable from preemies in the nicu is horrifying. The public is going to call the hands-off policy something unless people like you stop advocating it, which isn’t going to happen, so your only options are to come up with a better name for your preferred policy and get people to use it, or to have the public go on calling it “abortion on demand”. Pick one.

Good luck. I’ve asked for alternative terms to represent the situation under discussion a few times, and have yet to get a response.

Either you didn’t see my post or you are ignoring it.

Why not just say: abortion?

Abortion is accurate and succinct and does not carry any inherent judgement or political power.

Of course that makes it more difficult for people who are not the patient to decide how they personally would judge the women for having an abortion.

It also cools down the flames which arise within the breasts of anyone who, consciously or unconsciously, feels unhappy or uncomfortable with women being able to demand…anything.

 

[Elixir]

Abortion is accurate and succinct and does not carry any inherent judgement or political power.

Of course that makes it more difficult for people who are not the patient to decide how they personally would judge the women for having an abortion.

Yeah? Good.
It's none of their goddam business.

 

[Toni]

Abortion is accurate and succinct and does not carry any inherent judgement or political power.

Of course that makes it more difficult for people who are not the patient to decide how they personally would judge the women for having an abortion.

Yeah? Good.
It's none of their goddam business.

Exactly. It truly is not.

 

[thebeave]

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I question this claim. Here is results of a Gallup opinion poll (from 2018, so prior to the SC RvW decision). Is your claim supported within this survey data?

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

The link to the 8 year old survey does not work.

Sorry, my bad. I updated my previous post. The 8 year old survery is now viewable there. Also, here:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx

Pretty interesting. Ignoring the bias in the poll (referring to the fetus as a child), 48% of the respondents said a 3rd trimester abortion should not be legal in the case of rape, and 52% said a 3rd trimester should not be legal in the case of the fetus having a life threatening illness.

The survey could have been worded better. This is how they typically used it:

• when the child would be born with a life-threatening illness

Baby would have been more succinct than child, IMHO. Saying "when the fetus would be born with a life-threatening illness" would be inaccurate, as at birth (a full term birth, anyway) it is no longer considered a fetus. The dictionary definition of a child includes a baby at the time of birth.

 

[ZiprHead]

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I question this claim. Here is results of a Gallup opinion poll (from 2018, so prior to the SC RvW decision). Is your claim supported within this survey data?

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

The link to the 8 year old survey does not work.

Sorry, my bad. I updated my previous post. The 8 year old survery is now viewable there. Also, here:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx

Pretty interesting. Ignoring the bias in the poll (referring to the fetus as a child), 48% of the respondents said a 3rd trimester abortion should not be legal in the case of rape, and 52% said a 3rd trimester should not be legal in the case of the fetus having a life threatening illness.

The survey could have been worded better. This is how they typically used it:

• when the child would be born with a life-threatening illness

Baby would have been more succinct than child, IMHO. Saying "when the fetus would be born with a life-threatening illness" would be inaccurate, as at birth (a full term birth, anyway) it is no longer considered a fetus. The dictionary definition of a child includes a baby at the time of birth.

When considering an abortion the baby has not been born yet so they are still a fetus.

 

[Emily Lake]

I’m objecting to the term on demand because I don’t think it’s very accurate and I do think it’s very inflammatory. Inflammatory means dangerous for women and abortion providers and clinic workers.

If the doctor thinks it’s not medically sound to perform an abortions she might well try to convince her or seek out another provider. People seeking abortions are generally pretty desperate to terminate the pregnancy.

Yes, I get all that— this is a situation where connotation matters more than technical definition. So why the devil don’t you apply the same nuanced considerations to “abortion” that you’re quite sensibly applying to “demand”? Why are you defending the use of “abortion” to refer to a noninduced miscarriage? That too is inflammatory and dangerous to women and abortion providers. And why on earth would you want to compound the problem by adding yet a third meaning to “abortion” — using it to mean the concept currently known as “abortion on demand”? That will just ensure that when a woman gets a first trimester medically necessary abortion people who find out she. had it will equate it with an unnecessary third trimester abortion — which will once again be inflammatory and dangerous.

Because that's what abortion is. Miscarriage is the non-rigorous term, not abortion.

Why do you think we need to contort ourselves to use medical jargon with technical meanings, when nobody in this thread is at all confused about what we mean when we use common, colloquial language?

It ends up seeming like artificial hurdles put in place to decrease understanding and avoid the core concepts involved.

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I’m not sure that’s true. IIRC about 80% oppose 3rd T without a medical need, but only about 15% oppose 2nd T or earlier. Of that, only about 5%-ish oppose abortions completely… which is about the same % that advocate for abortions with no limits at all.