Roe v Wade is on deck

[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.

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.

Not only do you not trust doctors to make the right "medical diagnosis", you seem to forget that when doctors use their professional judgment that they are making a type of medical diagnosis.

 

[Elixir]

I pointed out logical fallacies in your and Toni’s arguments.

I am not responsible for Toni; she shows ample ability to defend herself against your rhetorical game play. And you failed to address what I said. The fact that you’re in high dudgeon about it, is revelatory though.

The responses I got make no sense

“Lalala I can’t hear you!”
… not the most eloquent defense.
You shirk responsibility for your own words here, B#20, and I apologize for expecting more of you.
Don’t deny defining “abortion on demand” as an extant structure for equitable exchange of goods and services. It is, in fact a rhetorical structure devised and deployed to vilify those who would threaten or murder “unborn children”. Your childish response to this being pointed out, is well noted.

 

[thebeave]

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.

What reasons do you imagine that almost 90% of women have for not wanting it in the third trimester? Do they just not know what's right for them or how to form sensible opinions?

 

[Toni]

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.

What reasons do you imagine that almost 90% of women have for not wanting it in the third trimester? Do they just not know what's right for them or how to form sensible opinions?

Most women who obtain abortions do so early in the pregnancy. Most later abortions are because of health issues for either the mother or the fetus or because they did not know earlier that they were pregnant or were unable to access an abortion until later.

Sometimes fetal abnormalities are not discovered until the second or third trimester. Most spontaneous abortions occur during he first trimester because of fetal abnormalities, sometimes before a pregnancy is confirmed or even suspected.

So generally, the reason for the abortion over time across the population of women who seek abortion changes, not because of individual desire to continue the pregnancy but because of significant changes in the health of the mother or fetus. And less frequently, because of difficulty in gaining access to abortion.

If we, as a society, wish to reduce the number of abortions, we need to make some structural changes in our society to better support pregnant women, new parents and pare ts in general and children, including access to good nutrition, good medical care, safe and stable housing, good accessible day care and good education.

By good, I mean excellent.

 

[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

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?

Here’s the thing: Being supportive of women ( or men or children or cows or dogs) means being supportive of all women and recognizing that women are comprised of individuals just as men are, it means recognizing that women have their own needs and priorities and circumstances and their own right to make decisions that are right for them.

We do not have to like or approve of decisions people we respect make. But if we respect people, we respect their autonomy and ability to make choices for themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

What reasons do you imagine that almost 90% of women have for not wanting it in the third trimester? Do they just not know what's right for them or how to form sensible opinions?

I have no idea why almost 90% of women have for not wanting to have 3rd trimester abortions legal. Those women don't have to have abortions in the 3rd trimester if they don't want to have one.

As to your second question, what is "right" for 90% of women does not mean it is "right" for all women. Nor do conflicting opinions mean that one of the them is sensible and the other is not.

 

[Toni]

SF

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?

women are not required to feeel the same way, think the same way, have the same wishes, hopes, dreams, ambitions, priorities, needs, wants, or thoughts as each other.

Women do not require the approval or acquiescence of other women any more than they require the approval or acquiescence of men to make decisions that align with their beliefs and needs.

We are not a monolith.

 

[Playball40]

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.

What reasons do you imagine that almost 90% of women have for not wanting it in the third trimester? Do they just not know what's right for them or how to form sensible opinions?

Most women who obtain abortions do so early in the pregnancy. Most later abortions are because of health issues for either the mother or the fetus or because they did not know earlier that they were pregnant or were unable to access an abortion until later.

Sometimes fetal abnormalities are not discovered until the second or third trimester. Most spontaneous abortions occur during he first trimester because of fetal abnormalities, sometimes before a pregnancy is confirmed or even suspected.

So generally, the reason for the abortion over time across the population of women who seek abortion changes, not because of individual desire to continue the pregnancy but because of significant changes in the health of the mother or fetus. And less frequently, because of difficulty in gaining access to abortion.

If we, as a society, wish to reduce the number of abortions, we need to make some structural changes in our society to better support pregnant women, new parents and pare ts in general and children, including access to good nutrition, good medical care, safe and stable housing, good accessible day care and good education.

By good, I mean excellent.

Exactly. Most abortions that are later in the pregnancy were WANTED pregnancies and there is a lot of grief associated with it. But it's often the best decision medically. No govt/politician/lawmaker/person other than the family involved and the doctor should have ANY input.

 

[TomC]

Exactly. Most abortions that are later in the pregnancy were WANTED pregnancies and there is a lot of grief associated with it. But it's often the best decision medically. No govt/politician/lawmaker/person other than the family involved and the doctor should have ANY input.

Exactly!
A mother who carries her baby into the 3rd trimester and then decides to get an abortion has a big problem. Almost certainly it's a medical disaster. But even if it's something else I don't think anyone else is in a position to forbid anything.
Especially not the assholes in state legislature.
Tom

 

[Playball40]

Exactly. Most abortions that are later in the pregnancy were WANTED pregnancies and there is a lot of grief associated with it. But it's often the best decision medically. No govt/politician/lawmaker/person other than the family involved and the doctor should have ANY input.

Exactly!
A mother who carries her baby into the 3rd trimester and then decides to get an abortion has a big problem. Almost certainly it's a medical disaster. But even if it's something else I don't think anyone else is in a position to forbid anything.
Especially not the assholes in state legislature.
Tom

It was already illegal under RvW. And NO DOCTOR IS GOING TO PERFORM a third trimester abortion without a medical reason. They would lose their license. No one is walking into PP at week 37 saying, please terminate the pregnancy. That would be an induction not an abortion.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

An apt example of a state mandated disgnosis of medical “necessity “.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Seriously? Does it also make little moral sense to you if it’s okay to karate chop a brick for reason X (to show off your skills) then why is it not okay to karate chop a dog? Having an abortion in the third trimester negatively affects a third party; in the first or second trimester, not so much.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Seriously? Does it also make little moral sense to you if it’s okay to karate chop a brick for reason X (to show off your skills) then why is it not okay to karate chop a dog?

No, because a dog is not brick.

Having an abortion in the third trimester negatively affects a third party; in the first or second trimester, not so much.

Why - the 3rd party is still the same potential human in all 3 trimesters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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


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

The problem is the rules of RvW assumed third trimester was a medical decision. If continuing the pregnancy posed an undue threat abortion was offered. Now we have politicians flipping that around and saying that if death isn't imminent that abortion is prohibited.

And when death is imminent doing the abortion very well might not save her.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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

If it wasn't a plausible reason it would have gotten rejected.

The thing is I have a very big problem with how the study glosses over something that will contaminate the sample.

Just because you like what it says is not a reason to not look for flaws.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is the lesson that should have been learned when the laws in Ireland prevented doctors from providing very much needed medical care to Sativa Halappanavar, thereby sentencing her to suffer for a week in a hospital and then die while doctors waited for her doomed, unsavable fetus to no longer have a detectable heartbeat. But that lesson wasn't learned. We still have politicians crafting "fetal heartbeat" laws and other potential death sentences for pregnant women while smugly proclaiming themselves "Pro-life".

The lesson was learned. In Ireland.

I can only speculate why they want to criminalize what might be life-saving procedures but I suspect it is a combination of ignorance and authoritarianism, with a side of "Oh, that sounds awful". Well, amputations sound awful but the doctors who cut off half of my father's foot shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime of deliberate maiming. They did it so the gangrene in his toes wouldn't spread to the rest of his body and in accordance with the medical ethics and standards of care set by the State Medical Board where he lived. And yeah, my father wasn't dying right at that very moment but still, it was a predictable outcome once other treatments had been tried and failed, and I believe my father and his doctors were the right ones to make that call, not some rando in the State legislature with a background in retail.

When faith and reason conflict faith tends to win.

Well then, I guess the only thing we disagree on if we trust women and their doctors to make that call or if we think people far removed from the situation and who literally know nothing about it can be trusted to craft laws that don't present an undue burden on health care providers.

I don't believe that a politician writing a law can predict all the situations that doctors and patients subject to that law will face. Not even Boards full of medical professionals can do that. So either that law has to be very generous in its allowances for doctors to choose not to strictly follow it, or it's a crappy law that will put people in needless danger. It might even result in preventable deaths which makes it much worse than merely crappy.

Look at Texas. They will not provide guidelines.

The only interpretation that makes any sense is they intend a basically total prohibition but don't want to be on record saying so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only option I would like limited is the abortion of a late term fetus when there is no known health risk or complication to either the mother or the fetus.

Why is it that every single attempted counter argument for my position relies on an identifiable and known medical need being denied? Or in your case, the pretense that disallowing late term abortions with no medical justification would somehow prohibit an early induced delivery?

Almost all of the opposing arguments used in this thread, by you and others, are scenarios that I explicitly consider reasonable and appropriate for an abortion. The exceptions are LD who doesn’t try to argue, but simply stands by his belief that on-demand abortion should be allowable at any point prior to delivery, and Jarhyn who thinks people aren’t people until he decides they are and views children as non-persons altogether.

The problem is you claim this, but keep calling for roadblocks that would be completely irrelevant under such a standard?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I haven't read it, but the number 28 sounds awfully small for a "study". It feels more like an informal survey.

Social science studies can have small samples. Especially one that is surveying women who have had 3rd trimester abortions. You should read it - well-written, succinct and relatively short.

They can, but 28 is not a large sample to draw a large populational conclusion from. I would see such a study as an excellent source of qualitative data, but not a great source of statistics. As, indeed, is the approach of the author, who is not so much trying to draw a representative sample as a diverse one, more or less exactly what I would do in the same situation since it would actually be quite difficult to locate a representative sample willing to participate. That doesn't make the study "informal", whatever that is supposed to mean, just a source of a different kind of information than, say, a census.

The author of the study made no attempt at any statistical analysis. Which is why all of the hoopla about the methodology, etc... is pure nonsense.

The hoopla is relevant if the studies are a Trojan horse--an attempt to slip in data showing third trimester abortions without medical reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It would not kill tons. It would kill some.

RvW existed in a realm where abortion for medical reasons was permitted, it did not address a non-problem. Now the permitted for medical reasons is being removed from the equation, women are being thrown out to die.