Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

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.

I still disagree. A substantial portion of Americans oppose 3rd T without a medical reason, but have no objection to earlier ones. The clear majority opinion is RvW standards.

Whether it’s intentional or not, your assertion comes across as an attempt at guilt by association, implying that people who oppose 3rd T without a reason are secret hard-line pro-lifers.

 

[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?

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.

You didn’t actually answer either of my questions. They weren’t even complicated questions.

 

[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.

You didn’t actually answer either of my questions. They weren’t even complicated questions.

Sigh: I’ve already answered the first question repeatedly:

1. Abortion

The answer the second question is, fir the cheap seats:

2. Education.

Clarification: A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

 

[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.

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.

I don’t know if you truly don’t understand or if you’re nitpicking trivialities and playing word games. So let me try to be super clear.

Current regulations in 9 states: doctors can perform abortions at any time in the pregnancy, and no medical diagnosis is required.

What I want: in the first 2 trimesters doctors can perform abortions with no medical diagnosis; in the 3rd trimester a medical diagnosis is required.

That isn’t “not trusting physician judgement”. It’s requiring that physician medical judgement be employed.

 

[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.

You mean like referring to a fetus as a child?

In the 3rd trimester, it’s not meaningfully different from a child. The only material difference is geography.

 

[Toni]

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.

I don’t know if you truly don’t understand or if you’re nitpicking trivialities and playing word games. So let me try to be super clear.

Current regulations in 9 states: doctors can perform abortions at any time in the pregnancy, and no medical diagnosis is required.

What I want: in the first 2 trimesters doctors can perform abortions with no medical diagnosis; in the 3rd trimester a medical diagnosis is required.

That isn’t “not trusting physician judgement”. It’s requiring that physician medical judgement be employed.

It still is the physician’s medical judgement being used. You just don’t like that the physician’s decision might not use the criteria that you, who has no medical background afaik nor any background in psychology or social work might make.

Can you explain why you believe a woman is obligated to beg for a medical procedure that she deems necessary?

 

[Toni]

@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?

In the 3rd trimester, it’s not meaningfully different from a child. The only material difference is geography.

Its ability to survive outside the mother’s body differ significantly compared with a full term baby.

 

[laughing dog]

I don’t know if you truly don’t understand or if you’re nitpicking trivialities and playing word games. So let me try to be super clear.

Current regulations in 9 states: doctors can perform abortions at any time in the pregnancy, and no medical diagnosis is required.

What I want: in the first 2 trimesters doctors can perform abortions with no medical diagnosis; in the 3rd trimester a medical diagnosis is required.

That isn’t “not trusting physician judgement”. It’s requiring that physician medical judgement be employed.

You are truly irony-impaired. By fucking definition, a doctor using professional judgment is using medical judgment.

You are fine with doctor's medical judgment on the medical necessity of abortion as long does not conflict with your morality.
But since there is a restriction (conforming with your morality), that means there is no complete trust.

Look, a federal law restoring RvW as a reachable intermediate step towards full abortion reform is a laudable compromise goal IMO. But not as the end solution.

 

[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?

In the 3rd trimester, it’s not meaningfully different from a child. The only material difference is geography.

Not meaningfully different? A truly Orwellian defense of Orwellian-speak.

 

[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?

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.

I think you’re being overly generous in your application. If someone shows up and wants the abortion pill, I doubt anyone is going to do a breathalyzer test. If it’s an early vacuum aspiration, they may only care if the woman is obviously very intoxicated, but may not care if she’s only tipsy or high, because no medications are involved. D&C might need to know so they can get the right amount of dilatory drugs and avoid interactions.

Most abortions aren’t surgeries. There’s no anesthesia, and usually not even a sedative.


ETA: typing on a phone is annoying, I have a better vocabulary than apple, and the tiniest typing error results in the stupid-phone replacing it with something entirely different. How the heck it jumped from s slight typing error in “overly” all the way to “evenly” I don’t know.

 

[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.

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.

Okay… but that’s not what’s happening in this thread. In this discussion, some people are insisting we should avoid clear language that we all understand in favor of non-specific vague language that inhibits understanding.

 

[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.

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.

You have pointed out that the general term “abortion” includes spontaneous miscarriages. It also creates confusion, or requires that I add several extra paragraphs to communicate clearly.

I *will not* say that I oppose 3rd T abortions, because that is materially false and misleading. Maybe you want to try to make me use that language, because it’s much easier for you to argue against. But it’s not true.

So I’m going to decline your request to be less clear and support your obfuscatory approach. I’ll stick with clear common-use language that every single person in this thread understands, regardless of whether they ‘like’ it.

 

[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.

I think you’re being evenly generous in your application. If someone shows up and wants the abortion pill, I doubt anyone is going to do a breathalyzer test. If it’s an early vacuum aspiration, they may only care if the woman is obviously very intoxicated, but may not care if she’s only tipsy or high, because no medications are involved. D&C might need to know so they can get the right amount of dilatory drugs and avoid interactions.

Most abortions aren’t surgeries. There’s no anesthesia, and usually not even a sedative.

I admit I was not considering someone asking for a pill. Once in the situation where I thought I might need a morning after pill as they were called back then, I had an interview with the doctor who was careful to ask about any medications I might be on and to ensure that there had been no coercion or violence involved. There was screening for any alcohol or drug use (self disclosed, no test) but it was pretty obvious that I was very sober.

Even very low risk medical procedures require that you not be intoxicated by anything or even have taken an OTC that might interfere with normal blood clotting.

 

[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?

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.

You didn’t actually answer either of my questions. They weren’t even complicated questions.

Sigh: I’ve already answered the first question repeatedly:

1. Abortion

I’ll make you a deal: I’ll use abortion if you will stop trying to force confusion with miscarriage.

The answer the second question is, fir the cheap seats:

2. Education.

How does the term “education” disambiguate between “abortion” and “abortion”?

Clarification: A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

Mm hmm. How about YOU just call it miscarriage so we can avoid confusion? Especially since miscarriages aren’t part of this discussion in any way whatsoever.

 

[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.

You have pointed out that the general term “abortion” includes spontaneous miscarriages. It also creates confusion, or requires that I add several extra paragraphs to communicate clearly.

I *will not* say that I oppose 3rd T abortions, because that is materially false and misleading. Maybe you want to try to make me use that language, because it’s much easier for you to argue against. But it’s not true.

So I’m going to decline your request to be less clear and support your obfuscatory approach. I’ll stick with clear common-use language that every single person in this thread understands, regardless of whether they ‘like’ it.

Honestly, outside of pertinent medical personnel and perhaps intimate partner/close friend, whose business is it? Intimate partner/close friend or anyone else is strictly whether or not the person chooses to disclose, and how much they choose to disclose.

I did not ask that you say your oppose or support anything. If your position is that you support abortion rights as provided under RvW, you can just say that. But please acknowledge, even if just to yourself, that states could and DID restrict abortions in the third trimester and some outright forbade them except to save the mother's life and some in cases of rape or incest.

 

[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.

You didn’t actually answer either of my questions. They weren’t even complicated questions.

Sigh: I’ve already answered the first question repeatedly:

1. Abortion

I’ll make you a deal: I’ll use abortion if you will stop trying to force confusion with miscarriage.

The answer the second question is, fir the cheap seats:

2. Education.

How does the term “education” disambiguate between “abortion” and “abortion”?

Clarification: A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.

Mm hmm. How about YOU just call it miscarriage so we can avoid confusion? Especially since miscarriages aren’t part of this discussion in any way whatsoever.

Why does anyone other than the person who was pregnant and her medical team need to know any detail beyond that she had an abortion? She might choose to tell her partner, her friends, her family, her job and she might choose to use the term miscarriage as that conveys different amount of emotion but seriously: Why is it anyone else's business if I was pregnant yesterday and am not pregnant today whether I chose to terminate a pregnancy or did not make that choice?

I mean, if that were really me, I am pretty sure that some tabloids and some medical journals might be interested in the medical miracles (yes, plural) that were in play to cause me to have been pregnant yesterday and there might be some legitimate scientific inquiry into how that happened and why I was no longer pregnant but that's unlikely in the extreme. And my identity would be concealed from the public.

 

[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.

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.

I don’t know if you truly don’t understand or if you’re nitpicking trivialities and playing word games. So let me try to be super clear.

Current regulations in 9 states: doctors can perform abortions at any time in the pregnancy, and no medical diagnosis is required.

What I want: in the first 2 trimesters doctors can perform abortions with no medical diagnosis; in the 3rd trimester a medical diagnosis is required.

That isn’t “not trusting physician judgement”. It’s requiring that physician medical judgement be employed.

It still is the physician’s medical judgement being used. You just don’t like that the physician’s decision might not use the criteria that you, who has no medical background afaik nor any background in psychology or social work might make.

It’s the physician’s medical judgement that no medical diagnosis is needed?

Can you explain why you believe a woman is obligated to beg for a medical procedure that she deems necessary?

If a woman decides it’s necessary for her to get chemotherapy even though she doesn’t have cancer, just because she’s a woman? I don’t think a woman should be “obligated to beg”, I merely think that a medical necessity should be required for some medical procedures, especially when the procedure involves killing another life that has an 85% chance of surviving and thriving outside the womb if the woman delivered prematurely.

Apparently “extreme” and “oppressive” to expect a good medical need before killing babies.

 

[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.

You mean like referring to a fetus as a child?

In the 3rd trimester, it’s not meaningfully different from a child. The only material difference is geography.

Its ability to survive outside the mother’s body differ significantly compared with a full term baby.

Sure… a 15% difference at the start of the 3rd trimester. Only 5% different two weeks later. By the time you get to 30 weeks, there’s no meaningful difference.

I suppose if you think an 85% likelihood to survive and thrive is too low to be taken into consideration, you can have that view. Just own you view that a 29 week premie is disposable in your eyes.

 

[Toni]

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.

I don’t know if you truly don’t understand or if you’re nitpicking trivialities and playing word games. So let me try to be super clear.

Current regulations in 9 states: doctors can perform abortions at any time in the pregnancy, and no medical diagnosis is required.

What I want: in the first 2 trimesters doctors can perform abortions with no medical diagnosis; in the 3rd trimester a medical diagnosis is required.

That isn’t “not trusting physician judgement”. It’s requiring that physician medical judgement be employed.

It still is the physician’s medical judgement being used. You just don’t like that the physician’s decision might not use the criteria that you, who has no medical background afaik nor any background in psychology or social work might make.

It’s the physician’s medical judgement that no medical diagnosis is needed?

Can you explain why you believe a woman is obligated to beg for a medical procedure that she deems necessary?

If a woman decides it’s necessary for her to get chemotherapy even though she doesn’t have cancer, just because she’s a woman? I don’t think a woman should be “obligated to beg”, I merely think that a medical necessity should be required for some medical procedures, especially when the procedure involves killing another life that has an 85% chance of surviving and thriving outside the womb if the woman delivered prematurely.

Apparently “extreme” and “oppressive” to expect a good medical need before killing babies.

Physicians make physical assessments before providing any service. It is a condition of getting a prescription for anything, even an antibiotic. They also assess the patient's mental/emotional status. It is part of their job.

What I am saying is that YOUR personal judgement about the necessity or advisability of an abortion has ZERO place in any discussion between patient and doctor. Nor does mine nor anyone else's. Exceptions would be if the person is unable due to young age or disability unable to make medical decisions for themselves. According to you, women would be in the latter category: unable to make medical decisions for themselves.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t know if you truly don’t understand or if you’re nitpicking trivialities and playing word games. So let me try to be super clear.

Current regulations in 9 states: doctors can perform abortions at any time in the pregnancy, and no medical diagnosis is required.

What I want: in the first 2 trimesters doctors can perform abortions with no medical diagnosis; in the 3rd trimester a medical diagnosis is required.

That isn’t “not trusting physician judgement”. It’s requiring that physician medical judgement be employed.

You are truly irony-impaired. By fucking definition, a doctor using professional judgment is using medical judgment.

You are fine with doctor's medical judgment on the medical necessity of abortion as long does not conflict with your morality.
But since there is a restriction (conforming with your morality), that means there is no complete trust.

Look, a federal law restoring RvW as a reachable intermediate step towards full abortion reform is a laudable compromise goal IMO. But not as the end solution.

*Sigh*. Fine. It is your opinion that if a doctor gives a person chemo drugs because they want them, and there is no cancer involved, they’re exercising professional medical judgement.