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

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.

Estimation of development are accurate to within about a week. And since I propose a threshold well within the 90% survival range, I think the margin of error you’re complaining about is irrelevant.

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.

I understand that your particular moral framework takes this view. Mine doesn’t.

I disagree with your view for the same reason that I do t think 10 year olds should be allowed to drive, or16 year olds sign legal contracts, or 19 year olds get social security.

Even if the exact dividing line is not perfect, we should all understand that there’s a difference between two trees and a forest. We can make a reasonable judgement.

 

[Toni]

The deeply personal and hot button issues are reasons for the small sample size.

I didn't say differently. I was commenting on whether the results were particularly meaningful in any big ways or not.
Tom

I think that no survey on earth will convince people who are inclined to disbelieve women.

This study does present the same narratives that I’ve heard and read over many years about why women seek later term abortions. The erratics presented are unsurprising to most women who have paid attention to the issues of abortion. Women who seek Kate term abortions do so because of serious medical concerns for their own health or because of serious deformities in the fetus that are incompatible with life and would result in more suffering for the fetus if it survived until term and survived birth.

Occasionally, because a woman was unable to obtain an abortion earlier for many reasons.

For those of you who don’t realize: Not everyone knows they are pregnant early in their pregnancy. There are sometimes false negative pregnancy test results. Not everyone knows woman has regular menstrual cycles and sometimes, a pregnant woman can experience some bleeding she believes to be menstruation after she is pregnant. Some women gain very little weight during pregnancy. Sometimes, the fetus moves very little during pregnancy. Fetal movement ts generally cannot be felt earlier than 20 weeks. Early movement ts can easily be missed especially if the movements occur during sleep.

Sometimes doctors are inaccurate when calculating gestational age, particularly if no ultrasounds are done. This is less common now compared with earlier. Not everyone has access to good reliable medical care and may not have had access to an ultrasound early in their pregnancy. Or at all.

Some of these have happened to me.

 

[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.

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.

And you are attempting to sidestep the question of diagnosis.

If there is a medical justification, the doctor merely needs to document the diagnosis code, as they do for any other procedure. If there is no diagnosis code, then don’t do the procedure.

“Patient said she really wants it” is insufficient for any medical procedure outside of purely cosmetic… and let’s be frank: killing a baby that can survive outside the room is not merely cosmetic.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

If you believe this to be true, then why do you oppose requiring a medical reason be documented that late in the pregnancy?

 

[TomC]

If someone thinks 28 participants is too a small to inspire confidence, that is a personal judgment. But expecting unsubstantiated claims of lying, or participants were ignored or that the sample is not "representative" to be convincing or evidence of rational thought is extremely optimistic.

I just don't find anecdotal evidence particularly compelling. I totally agree that people who are not directly involved in something like this should get the hell out of the personal discussion.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

This is you assuming something based on your beliefs. It is not reality. In 9 states + DC they would NOT lose their license, and there is no mechanism for that to happen.

And given that there is at least one clinic (not PP I think) that ADVERTISES that they will do abortions up to week 39… I think your assumptions are misguided.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

An example of oppressive and overbearing mandates. Something I don’t support, and which was essentially unheard of under RvW.

 

[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.

And you are attempting to sidestep the question of diagnosis.

No.

If there is a medical justification, the doctor merely needs to document the diagnosis code, as they do for any other procedure. If there is no diagnosis code, then don’t do the procedure.

“Patient said she really wants it” is insufficient for any medical procedure outside of purely cosmetic… and let’s be frank: killing a baby that can survive outside the room is not merely cosmetic.

First, I believe diagnosis codes are required for insurance coverage. So, if this is not paid for by insurance, it is not an issue.
Second, while I am not a physician, I think that any doctor who is willing to perform abortions would be able to use their professional judgment to make appropriate medical diagnosis even if it is based on mental or emotional health issues.
Third, if a physician's professional judgment led him or her to not perform an abortion, then you have no beef.

 

[laughing dog]

If someone thinks 28 participants is too a small to inspire confidence, that is a personal judgment. But expecting unsubstantiated claims of lying, or participants were ignored or that the sample is not "representative" to be convincing or evidence of rational thought is extremely optimistic.

I just don't find anecdotal evidence particularly compelling. I totally agree that people who are not directly involved in something like this should get the hell out of the personal discussion.
Tom

And yet, as a gay man, you feel compelled to get involved in the personal discussion.

 

[TomC]

And yet, as a gay man, you feel compelled to get involved in the personal discussion.

Pretty weak dodge dude. It's called ad hom.
I'm gay so pointing out the distinction between science and anecdotes is wrong, according to you.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Buddy. They’re human at all stages. At no point is that fetus some other species.

You’re going down Jarhyn’s nebulous personhood argument that ended with him opining that some humans are never people. Are you sure you want to hop on that train?

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Ah yes, the insurmountable “ roadblock” of the doctor having to record a diagnosis code. Truly a horrible burden on doctors to expect them to do what they’re expected to do for any other medical service…

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You have no good reason to assume this, other than to invent malicious actors to support your pre-formed beliefs. You’re making a conspiracy theory.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Which is why you oppose my view which does not do that?

You are treating me like a villain for something I have never supported.

Sort yourself out.

 

[Toni]

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.

If you believe this to be true, then why do you oppose requiring a medical reason be documented that late in the pregnancy?

Why should women have to beg and plead to justify terminating a pregnancy that is, to her, no longer tenable?

Some few fetuses who are born at 25 weeks may survive, albeit with tremendous medical intervention that almost certainly will be life long, expensive and painful for the baby and family and for the medical professionals.

To curve a woman to go through additional bureaucratic rigamarole satisfies what? Who? Why is that necessary?

To make you feel better? Why do your feelings matter, if it is not you in that room?

 

[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.

Buddy. They’re human at all stages. At no point is that fetus some other species.

Of course. Yet you are fine with abortion on humans in the first 2 semesters but not the 3rd.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You’ve got it backwards. It lets him pretend that anyone who opposes late term abortions without a medical need are completely “ant-abortion”.

I don’t know what to call that kind of fallacy, but it’s fallacious (and disingenuous) nonetheless.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Because a fetus two weeks prior to delivery is a baby, and you goddamned know it. It’s not a shocking idea to expect a good reason for killing a bsby.

Why is it anybody’s business if a parent kills their newborn? Or toddler? Or dependent elderly parent?

 

[Emily Lake]

Plenty of women have died in hospital parking lots while “demanding” abortions, mostly in States that are susceptible to “abortion on demand” rhetoric.

Translation: some states have and sued and harmful restrictions so the only possible response is to have no restrictions at all!

This is a silly, and thoughtless, argument.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You realize that everything Jarhyn posts on this topic is a fever dream that exists only in his mind, don’t you?