Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

No. Following medical guidelines leads to medically ethical decisions by definition.

I agree… but that requires guideline to follow in the first place.

I’ve posted 2 guidelines. Existence does not require your approval.

Of course they don't.

The problem is the guidelines are written in the context of resolving best practices within the realm of what is reasonable to consider. What is reasonable to consider is part of their medical education and changes over time as we learn more about the body. The law generally does not and should not specify this.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

28 women who had verified 3rd trimester abortions gave their reasons. That’s called reality unless you have evidence the respondents are either liars or delusional.

 

[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?

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.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh for the love of god. “On demand” is not a qualifier!

FFS Did you fail fourth grade grammar? I would not have thought so.

Top of my class all through grammar school, thanks for asking. I expect you think insulting me proves I’m wrong, but you didn’t supply evidence.

In this national debate “On demand” qualifies an abortion to differentiate it rhetorically from abortions performed due to medical necessity, determined by Church andr State.

If that were the case it would imply nobody demands an abortion she medically needs. But let’s pretend you’re right for the sake of discussion — let’s pretend “on demand” is the French-style adjective you seem to be insisting it is, appended to the back of the noun to specify it’s the “not performed due to medical necessity” type. I asked what you wanted to replace “abortion on demand” with and you said “abortion”. So you are advocating that we use “abortion” to mean “not medically necessary abortion”. How you can possibly imagine anyone but anti-abortion crusaders would benefit from that terminological choice is mind-boggling.

 

[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.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

 

[Toni]

Oh for the love of god. “On demand” is not a qualifier!

FFS Did you fail fourth grade grammar? I would not have thought so.

Top of my class all through grammar school, thanks for asking. I expect you think insulting me proves I’m wrong, but you didn’t supply evidence.

In this national debate “On demand” qualifies an abortion to differentiate it rhetorically from abortions performed due to medical necessity, determined by Church andr State.

If that were the case it would imply nobody demands an abortion she medically needs. But let’s pretend you’re right for the sake of discussion — let’s pretend “on demand” is the French-style adjective you seem to be insisting it is, appended to the back of the noun to specify it’s the “not performed due to medical necessity” type. I asked what you wanted to replace “abortion on demand” with and you said “abortion”. So you are advocating that we use “abortion” to mean “not medically necessary abortion”. How you can possibly imagine anyone but anti-abortion crusaders would benefit from that terminological choice is mind-boggling.

Can you make a cogent case for the need to differentiate between ‘medically necessary’ abortions and abortions ‘on demand?’

Why is it anybody’s business?

 

[Bomb#20]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog? Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

 

[Elixir]

If that were the case it would imply nobody demands an abortion she medically needs.

Is it really necessary to resort to absurd projections?
Plenty of women have died in hospital parking lots while “demanding” abortions, mostly in States that are susceptible to “abortion on demand” rhetoric.

If it comes to a woman’s “demanding”, it generally means she has been denied a medical necessity, and a good chance she’s bleeding out even as her “demand” is being mulled over by authorities, or is in queue to be mulled over.
Yet, vilifying the fictional availability of “abortion on demand” remains an effective rhetorical tool for authoritarians to acquire or maintain control over other people’s bodies. That, with or without your enabling argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

If that were the case it would imply nobody demands an abortion she medically needs.

Is it really necessary to resort to absurd projections?
Plenty of women have died in hospital parking lots while “demanding” abortions, mostly in States that are susceptible to “abortion on demand” rhetoric.

If it comes to a woman’s “demanding”, it generally means she has been denied a medical necessity, and a good chance she’s bleeding out even as her “demand” is being mulled over by authorities, or is in queue to be mulled over.
Yet, vilifying the fictional availability of “abortion on demand” remains an effective rhetorical tool for authoritarians to acquire or maintain control over other people’s bodies. That, with or without your enabling argument.

But you see, their demand to the existence of one more child, or puppy, or whatever it is is far more important than the demand that it not come at a third party's time and expense or under their responsibility or under their ostensible blame of anything has already gone undetectable (at that point in time) wrong or would be wrong simply for their decision to terminate the pregnancy with an induced delivery.

They think they can get a right to conscript someone like that.

 

[Elixir]

their demand to the existence of one more child, or puppy, or whatever it is is far more important

That’s fine, if only they dare to articulate that demand succinctly so that they may be justly ridiculed.

 

[laughing dog]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog?

No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog.

Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

Says you, not me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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

Legislators don’t need to define medical necessity. They don’t define medical necessity for ACA when it comes to provisions for reconstructive and corrective surgery as opposed to cosmetic. The refs say the first two must be covered by insurance, and the latter cannot be eligible for subsidized coverage.

This is no different, and it’s increasingly absurd to pretend that such detail is required.

If it’s medically necessary, there will be a diagnosis code of the medical condition that supports it, documented in the medical records as the supporting evidence for why the procedure was done.

Cosmetic surgery won’t have a diagnosis code, because theres nothing to diagnose - there’s no medical diagnosis for “customer wants a smaller nose”. Corrective surgery will, because “deviated septum that restricts or diverts airflow” is an actual medical condition. There is no diagnosis code for “customer wants big ok’ titties”. There is a diagnosis code for “replace tissue lost to mastectomy” as well as for “giant boobies causing persistent back strain and ligament damage”.

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

Look in the mirror.

You are the one demanding documentation in the third trimester. Documentation that certainly already exists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem is your description of those 9 states does not reflect the reality on the ground. Just because it could be legally done doesn't mean it happens.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

…
“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”.

We label her views "anti-abortion" because she repeats every pro-punishment deception about the issue, and keeps calling for approaches that will kill women.

 

[Elixir]

“Abortion upon sufficiently long lasting and exhaustively opposed demand”.

Bugaboo of authoritarians fer sure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

28 women who had verified 3rd trimester abortions gave their reasons. That’s called reality unless you have evidence the respondents are either liars or delusional.

And here lies your problem: this in no way verified they actually had third trimester abortions. It's written to make you think they're verified but they are not.

 

[laughing dog]

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

28 women who had verified 3rd trimester abortions gave their reasons. That’s called reality unless you have evidence the respondents are either liars or delusional.

And here lies your problem: this in no way verified they actually had third trimester abortions. It's written to make you think they're verified but they are not.

The author of the study claimed to have verified that the respondents had a 3rd trimester abortion before they were interviewed. On what basis are you claiming the author lied?

 

[Bomb#20]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog?

No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog.

Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

Says you, not me.

If you really thought life makes the moral difference between a brick and a dog, and not sentience, then you would morally object to karate chopping a living geranium plant. You already indicated you don’t.

 

[laughing dog]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog?

No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog.

Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

Says you, not me.

If you really thought life makes the moral difference between a brick and a dog, and not sentience, then you would morally object to karate chopping a living geranium plant. You already indicated you don’t.

First, life doesn't make moral differences - people do. Second, I mistyped. My sentence should read "No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a brick". I would have a moral concern about karate chopping a geranium, just not as strong as karate chopping a dog.

 

[Bomb#20]

True, but a dog is alive and a brick is not and never will be alive.

And a brick is still the same potential pile of clay as a dog. What the destroyed object has the potential to turn into is immaterial — what matters is what it is when the blow is struck. A thirty-week fetus is not a twenty-week fetus any more than a dog is a brick. It’s a living animal that will suffer if someone kills it, the same as a dog struck by a martial artist.

No. Not alive is not alive. A fetus is alive and a brick is not.

So what? A geranium is alive and a brick is not. You think karate chopping a geranium raises the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog?

No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a dog.

Alive is not the relevant characteristic that makes a moral difference; sentience is.

Says you, not me.

If you really thought life makes the moral difference between a brick and a dog, and not sentience, then you would morally object to karate chopping a living geranium plant. You already indicated you don’t.

First, life doesn't make moral differences - people do. Second, I mistyped. My sentence should read "No, nor does it raise the same moral concerns as karate chopping a brick". I would have a moral concern about karate chopping a geranium, just not as strong as karate chopping a dog.

What’s wrong with karate chopping geraniums? (Apart from looking ridiculous.)

Sorry, I guess I don’t need to know. Focus. If sentience isn’t the issue, why is your moral concern about karate chopping a dog stronger than your moral concern about karate chopping a geranium?