Roe v Wade is on deck

[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.

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

What’s the difference between a 30 week human inside the womb and a 30 week human outside the womb other than location?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Any human who thinks that murdering babies is immoral, and wants to live in a society that doesn’t kill babies.

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.

Holy cow. I have “just said that”. Over and over and over. “Just say that” has resulted in a hundred pages of me being called names and subjected to all sorts of tortured illogic for no good reason that I can figure out.

 

[Toni]

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.

Any human who thinks that murdering babies is immoral, and wants to live in a society that doesn’t kill babies.

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.

Holy cow. I have “just said that”. Over and over and over. “Just say that” has resulted in a hundred pages of me being called names and subjected to all sorts of tortured illogic for no good reason that I can figure out.

And women died under RvW.

Who died and made you God with the knowledge and power to determine what is and is not moral?


You realize, don't your, that taken to only a bit more extreme, pregnant women who were seeking earlier abortions could simply be kidnapped and held against their will until they reached 3rd trimester at which point, they'd have no choice but to deliver a baby that they very much objected to carrying in the first place? Is that moral to you?

 

[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.

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.

Have you imagineered that I require a public statement of some sort? Who the hell do you fantasy needs to be informed in any of my positions?

Requiring a medical justification does not imply that the public at large needs to know a goddamned thing!

I swear some of you are just making up the weirdest fantasy scenarios in order to keep pretending that common-sense, long-established, more generous than other developed countries, basic guidelines are somehow the end of the world level of evil!

 

[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.

Have you imagineered that I require a public statement of some sort? Who the hell do you fantasy needs to be informed in any of my positions?

Requiring a medical justification does not imply that the public at large needs to know a goddamned thing!

I swear some of you are just making up the weirdest fantasy scenarios in order to keep pretending that common-sense, long-established, more generous than other developed countries, basic guidelines are somehow the end of the world level of evil!

Then why this discussion?

You clearly wish that rules would conform to your personal belief system. I personally do not think that anyone has to justify their medical choices to me or to the general public or to anyone other than their physician who may or may not agree to perform a procedure.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I reject your opinion.

I don’t think doctors are saints incapable of making decisions based on their own biases and beliefs. I am aware that doctors have in the past done horrific things that they viewed as appropriate medical practice. And I think there are a lot of doctors right now that do things that are medically unnecessary, ill-advised, dangerous, and wrong because it makes them more money, or because they have strong ideological biases that they allow to override good judgement.

 

[Toni]

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.

I reject your opinion.

I don’t think doctors are saints incapable of making decisions based on their own biases and beliefs. I am aware that doctors have in the past done horrific things that they viewed as appropriate medical practice. And I think there are a lot of doctors right now that do things that are medically unnecessary, ill-advised, dangerous, and wrong because it makes them more money, or because they have strong ideological biases that they allow to override good judgement.

I did not realize that you were a saint.

Huh.

I also did not realize that physicians must be saints, either.

Huh.

 

[Elixir]

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

Referring to a fetus as an unborn baby is just as erroneous as calling a baby a post-birth fetus. But it’s emotionally charged af, so “unborn baby” has become common rhetoric for the “right to life” crew, and most Murkinz don’t think twice about it.

 

[Elixir]

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?

In a word two words: “unborn babies”.
The amount of suffering that this causes to “post-birth fetuses” of reproductive age, must not be considered.

 

[TomC]

Why are you (and others) demanding a degree of perfect specificity for this that is not present in any other regulations?

That's nearly the opposite of what I have posted.
The medical establishments can make rules and regulations for themselves. What I want is for the government to shut up, sit down, and get out of the way!
Tom

 

[Arctish]

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.

Which 9 states allow doctors to perform abortions with no medical diagnosis required?

I think you are confusing allowing abortions at any stage of development and not having a specific list of conditions that must be met in order to justify them with having no regulations or medical ethics at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then why this discussion?

Because I committed the mortal sin of saying I want the same standards as RvW to be established as an actual real federal law. Which apparently makes my an evil person who wants women to bleed out in parking lots because of ectopic pregnancies.

If you can make it make sense, be my guest.

You clearly wish that rules would conform to your personal belief system. I personally do not think that anyone has to justify their medical choices to me or to the general public or to anyone other than their physician who may or may not agree to perform a procedure.

I wish the rules were what they used to be, which worked well for half a century and didn’t seem to cause the earth-shattering horror you seem to think RvW is responsible for

My “personal belief system” is one share by about 80% of the country. It’s not some odd bespoke interpretation, it’s a widely shared cohesive value.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why are you (and others) demanding a degree of perfect specificity for this that is not present in any other regulations?

That's nearly the opposite of what I have posted.
The medical establishments can make rules and regulations for themselves. What I want is for the government to shut up, sit down, and get out of the way!
Tom

The medical establishment thought that lobotomies were great, and now thinks that amputating the heathy breasts off of anxious young lesbians is a good idea.

 

[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.

Which 9 states allow doctors to perform abortions with no medical diagnosis required?

I think you are confusing allowing abortions at any stage of development and not having a specific list of conditions that must be met in order to justify them with having no regulations or medical ethics at all.

Go find me the medical regulations that require a medical diagnosis in the 3rd trimester. I’m not confusing anything - you’re assuming something exists on the basis that it ought to. But as your own state regs demonstrate, such limitations and requirements do not exist.

There are zero requirements for medical necessity in those 9 states + DC. None. They do not exist.

You, it appears, seem to believe requirements ought to exist. Most reasonable people think they ought to exist. But in actuality, they do not exist.

 

[TomC]

Why are you (and others) demanding a degree of perfect specificity for this that is not present in any other regulations?

That's nearly the opposite of what I have posted.
The medical establishments can make rules and regulations for themselves. What I want is for the government to shut up, sit down, and get out of the way!
Tom

The medical establishment thought that lobotomies were great, and now thinks that amputating the heathy breasts off of anxious young lesbians is a good idea.

I don't believe for one second that current medical establishments believe or support that crap for one second.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

…
“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.

The responses I got make no sense, unless the respondents aren’t interested in the implications for the outside world and just want an excuse to label your views “anti-abortion”.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

T: Phase one is steal underpants.
B: What’s phase two?
T: Phase three is profit!

 

[Bomb#20]

@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 the pyramids were built by alien lizard people?

They are dishonestly imply the VERB:

“As a verb, demand means to ask for something urgently, forcefully, or with a claim of authority.”

Who you calling “they”? If you mean Emily, quote her. If you don’t mean her, is anyone else in the thread pushing opposition to abortion on demand? If you mean prolifers, why are you challenging me about them? I didn’t defend those idiots; I pointed out logical fallacies in your and Toni’s arguments. Random third parties can say Julius Caesar was assassinated by the CIA and it won’t make you guys’ explanations make sense.

That’s the message, and I don’t believe you can credibly deny knowing that.

You can’t credibly deny that your vicious insinuations about me were pulled out of your ass and that’s back up where they should be shoved.

 

[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.

Yep. Lots of interesting stats in that survey. Per the chart at the end, its also interesting that only 12% of women themselves say "abortion should be generally legal in the third trimester". As I recall from earlier in this thread, you are OK with abortion right up to the end, for any reason, yes? I'm not totally sure why you take that stance, but if its because you feel you are being supportive of women in allowing them to do what they please with their bodies, it doesn't quite make sense, since the vast majority of women (almost 90%) aren't buying into that themselves... and its their own body. They are taking a moral stance in favor of the unborn baby, even at the risk of their own health, safety and hardship. Or am I missing something?

 

[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.

Yep. Lots of interesting stats in that survey. Per the chart at the end, its also interesting that only 12% of women themselves say "abortion should be generally legal in the third trimester". As I recall from earlier in this thread, you are OK with abortion right up to the end, for any reason, yes? I'm not totally sure why you take that stance, but if its because you feel you are being supportive of women in allowing them to do what they please with their bodies, it doesn't quite make sense, since the vast majority of women (almost 90%) aren't buying into that themselves... and its their own body. They are taking a moral stance in favor of the unborn baby, even at the risk of their own health, safety and hardship. Or am I missing something?

You are missing somethings. First, a woman should have control over her health care regardless of what other women thing.

Second, there are circumstances where a woman either does not know she is pregnant or can gain access to an abortion or want one until the 3rd trimester.

Third, it is simpler legally to not limit by trimesters. The estimates of how far the gestation not pinpoint accurate. Viability depends on technology which means that technological advances will push the limit for legal abortions earlier. It is fairly easy to see whether a baby is in utero or born. Yes, it makes for some uncomfortable outcomes, but no matter when an abortion occurs, the outcome is uncomfortable.

Fourth, it makes little moral sense to me if it is okay to have an abortion for reason X (you pick the reason) in the 1st or 2nd tirmestsemester, then why is it not okay in the 3rd trimester.