Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

You are casting doubt on a study because of the perception of the possibility of misinformation on the part of some participants without a shred of evidence tied to the study. That is one teeny tiny step above "people are saying" as a proof. And just as convincing as evidence.

Not really.
We are casting doubt on the validity of the study as a representation of the broad reality.
Of the 1000 late term abortions up to the survey, 972 people were ignored or disinterested or both. The survey only involves the tiny few willing and able to participate. That's nothing like a representative sample.


It's a big problem for most such research, it's much worse when it's a deeply personal experience and a hot button issue.
Tom

It’s not a statistical study, it at no point even suggests any sort of statistical validity! It’s a qualitative study, investigating the types of reasons for late abortions… and nothing more.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

The only purpose was to do a qualitative investigation of the reasons that late abortions occur.

The conclusion was that it’s pretty much the same reasons as 2ndT abortions. The author opines that restrictive laws result in some abortions being pushed out to 3rdT when they would have occurred sooner if access were more reasonable.

I think that’s meaningful, especially for the objective of removing stupid laws like Texas has.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

What are your thoughts on the usefulness of focus groups?

 

[TomC]

What are your thoughts on the usefulness of focus groups?

Depends on the reason for it and the circumstances etc.

If the point is to better understand a particular group, fine. If the point is to serve an agenda, probably unimpressed.
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.

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?

Why should a woman have to beg and plead to justify terminating a breastfeeding newborn if she feels motherhood is no longer tenable for her?

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.

Is 75% survival reasonably considered “few”?

At 27 weeks, where I personally would like the line, it’s 90%, with less than 20% chance of developmental or health concerns. And I would be content if the line were at 28 weeks, which drops the risks even more.

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?

I know it’s a totally whacky idea, but I don’t think we should kill babies without a good reason.

 

[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.

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

Sure, my objection isn’t based on them being human or not. My objection is based on the very reasonable observation that late in gestation it’s indistinguishable from a baby, and I’m not okay with killing babies.

I’m aware that two trees does not a forest make. But I’m also aware that when there are enough trees, it becomes a forest. I don’t think I need to be able to provide an explicit number of trees, I merely need to be able to land on the side where most reasonable people would agree that it’s a forest.

Premise delivered prior to 25 weeks only have about a 50% survival rate, and about a 30% likelihood of severe to moderate disability. At 27 weeks, that’s 90% survival and less than 20% chance of moderate disability.

I think 27 weeks falls on the side where the vast majority of people would consider it a baby. I’m totally open to adding another week just to pad it a bit, and set it at 28.

 

[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…

The problem with demanding a diagnostic code is the same problem with strict legislation governing abortions. The codes, like the laws, have to be written beforehand. So either the codes have to be general guides with a lot of leeway or they will become obstacles to women receiving appropriate health care.

Diagnosis codes already exist, you numpty!

Why are you so dedicated to inventing obstacles that don’t actually exist?

 

[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?

Where is your proof that a fetus two weeks prior to term is aborted?

This is a stupid demand.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

I really like and admire dogs and appreciate their value in our human society.

Karate chopping a dog seems senseless and cruel unless the dog is about to harm a person. Karate chopping a geranium seems senseless and stupid.

Senseless and stupid doesn’t sound like a moral concern. Reading horoscopes is senseless and stupid but whatever floats your boat. What’s the difference between geraniums and dogs that makes doing it to geraniums stupid and to dogs cruel?

IMO, deliberately injuring a dog is cruel while deliberately injuring a plant is callous.
As I said, I really like dogs. I don’t really like geraniums.

Are there any mammals for which deliberate injury is something you do NOT view as cruelty? Exceptions granted for self-defense, food, and similar situations.

No.

Would you consider it merely silly to karate chop a rabbit for fun? A mouse?

No.

Okay… so what, in your view, creates the distinction between mammals and plants?

 

[Emily Lake]

What are your thoughts on the usefulness of focus groups?

Depends on the reason for it and the circumstances etc.

If the point is to better understand a particular group, fine. If the point is to serve an agenda, probably unimpressed.
Tom

What agenda do you think this paper had?

 

[Toni]

Geraniums aren't beings who have complex nervous systems. Next question which has a super obvious answer anyone who's studied philosophy would be able to answer.

That works. So does that mean you agree me then, that ld is wrong to think it doesn’t make sense to have moral issues with third trimester abortions but not first and second? A thirty week fetus’s nervous system is a lot more complex than a twenty week fetus’s.

Perhaps the issue does not reside with measures of complexity of a nervous system.

The issue has a lot more to do with bodily autonomy, imo.

Would you supplant mother killing her breastfeeding reborn in the basis of bodily autonomy?

A newborn can be fed formula.

 

[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?

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?

Where is your proof that a fetus two weeks prior to term is aborted?

This is a stupid demand.

It is as intelligent and much more on point than your baseless assertion that anyone aborts a baby two weeks prior to its due date.

 

[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

The only purpose was to do a qualitative investigation of the reasons that late abortions occur.

The conclusion was that it’s pretty much the same reasons as 2ndT abortions. The author opines that restrictive laws result in some abortions being pushed out to 3rdT when they would have occurred sooner if access were more reasonable.

I think that’s meaningful, especially for the objective of removing stupid laws like Texas has.

Also, some problems with fetal development are not discovered prior to the third trimester. And sometimes the mother's health is seriously compromised later in the pregnancy.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay… so what, in your view, creates the distinction between mammals and plants?

Mammals give me more joy than plants and we are mammals.

 

[Arctish]

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…

The problem with demanding a diagnostic code is the same problem with strict legislation governing abortions. The codes, like the laws, have to be written beforehand. So either the codes have to be general guides with a lot of leeway or they will become obstacles to women receiving appropriate health care.

Diagnosis codes already exist, you numpty!

Why are you so dedicated to inventing obstacles that don’t actually exist?

I know they exist, you cotton-headed ninnymuggins.

I am pointing out the obstacles you are proposing should exist.

Doctors sometimes encounter diseases that aren’t already identified and symptoms that have no known cause. The doctors dealing with the first cases of monkey pox in North America didn’t know what their patients had other than “ it appears to be some kind of pox”. The doctors treating pregnant women infected with Zika virus were at first bewildered by the symptoms and the effects on the fetuses. They had to rely on their best medical judgement in order to develop treatment plans.

I think you have to let doctors do what they believe is best for their patients even if there is no code for it.

 

[ZiprHead]

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…

Abortion codes are well established.

Billing for Interruption of Pregnancy: Early Pregnancy Loss

This resource provides information on the key terminology for billing for interruption of pregnancy, as well as coding for early pregnancy loss.

www.acog.org

You really should check before you make such broad statements.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, I certainly do. What’s your point? Do you see me telling Elixir not to butt in?

You certainly criticized him for it.

Uh huh. Tell me, do the words of mine you quoted at the beginning of this little exchange start with a capital letter?

Technically, yes.
"And yes, you bloody well are responsible for Toni, to the extent of putting in the effort to read what she wrote and putting in the effort to grasp my counterargument to her, since you saw fit to butt in on an exchange you weren’t a party to."

Thank you. I think that makes it pretty bloody clear I criticized him not for butting in but for failing to fulfill the responsibilities that go with butting in.

Not clear on what you mean by that and whether it’s supposed to be a criticism, but if this is part of your implication of hypocrisy on my part, I don’t recall ever accusing anyone else of white knighting.

""White knighting" is a derogatory internet slang term used to describe someone who rushes to the unsolicited defense of another person—typically a woman—in an argument. It implies that the behavior is performative, often done to curry favor or gain romantic attention."

Yeah, you feel the need to come rescue the damsel in distress.

Uh huh. Not sure how I’m supposed to get romantic attention from anyone out of it. Are you running a dating app on the side? And currying favor usually involves someone with the power to do favors for one. The people I come rescue are more apt to get banned than make policy here. Speaking of which, is it your theory that I’m rescuing damsels in distress because the gay conversion therapy finally paid off?

Take it up with whomever created the definition.

What’s to take up with them? I just showed your theory that I satisfy their criteria is wildly implausible. Before Emily became the primary target of people I feel the urge to refute the unfair attacks of, it was Metaphor. He was even less damsel-in-distressish than Emily, and even more banned. What is the alleged point of allegedly currying favor with people on the outs with the management?

 

[Bomb#20]

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not.

That's playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of a "fact". There is and always will be subjective judgement involved with determining what is or isn't medically necessary, even in a room full of physicians. If all medical experts firmly agreed on when abortions were necessary, this whole social debate would be simpler. The legal question would be much simpler.

Get a grip. The difficulty of drawing sharp digital lines on an analog world does not conflict with the existence of clear cases on both sides of the line. A room full of historians will never agree on which national leaders were overthrown by the US, and yet somehow it remains a fact of reality that the US overthrew Maduro and did not overthrow Richard III. If you call that playing fast and loose with the notion of a fact, you’re playing fast and loose with the notion of a notion.

If you're trying to make a law that treats those cases as different and non-overlapping, reality is going to bite you in the ass the second you try to implement it.

Yeah, and? Toni and I were talking about whether to have the categories in our mental repertoires, not how to draft a law. If you try to make a law that treats murder and self-defense as different and non-overlapping reality is going to bite you in the ass too, and room full of witnesses won’t always agree. Is that a reason not for have a word for murder in your vocabulary?

No, it's a reason to have a nuanced view of murder, perhaps something that works better than just hollering simplistic quips like "Some killings are murders and some aren’t, that’s just a fact of reality!"

Do you feel that having a nuanced view of murder is somehow incompatible with having a word for it? Do you feel that adding an extraneous exclamation point, replacing the descriptive phrase with the term being defined to make the claim appear circular, deleting the context that explains why the “fact of reality” bit was pertinent, and specifying that the whole product of your analogical artwork was delivered by “hollering”, collectively serve to make your analogy into a substantive critique?

Do you even disagree with my claim? Do you think all abortions are medically necessary? Do you think no abortions are medically necessary? Do you think neither of those things is true but feel we pro-choicers should deliberately avoid acknowledging that they aren’t? Or are you just flinging mud at the wall hoping some will stick?

 

[Bomb#20]

Side bar: I’m really uncomfortable with being discussed like this.

I don’t know how it is pertinent to the topic at hand.

Well, we were discussing you because I asked Arctish a question and you answered it. Of course you and your answer are going to get discussed. If you didn’t think what to rename “abortion on demand” to was pertinent, why did you offer a proposal?

 

[Bomb#20]

Geraniums aren't beings who have complex nervous systems. Next question which has a super obvious answer anyone who's studied philosophy would be able to answer.

That works. So does that mean you agree me then, that ld is wrong to think it doesn’t make sense to have moral issues with third trimester abortions but not first and second? A thirty week fetus’s nervous system is a lot more complex than a twenty week fetus’s.

I bet you're not a vegan though.

You win! What’s your point? Should I be?

Since other animals have complex nervous systems too? Yup! If you accept the argument that abortion is bad because complex nervous systems.

So who says I accept that? What is with you guys? Abortion is an exceedingly complicated moral conundrum; it doesn’t have a simple answer. Complex nervous systems are one consideration among many. But every time I say anything that bears on the analysis of some specific step in some specific person’s chain of reasoning, somebody will jump down my throat assuming I said you can get directly from that one fact to an overall solution to the whole abortion problem in one step. Gaah!

The claim that it doesn’t make sense to object to third-trimester abortions if you don’t object to earlier ones isn’t reasonable, because complex nervous systems. That’s it. Anything else you want to plug the “because complex nervous systems” sentence fragment into, knock yourself out but don’t ascribe it to me.

Otherwise, you're just doing special pleading. Which is what you're accusing the pro-choice side of doing when it comes to first and second trimesters.

Can I have some of whatever you’re smoking? Where the bloody hell did you see me accuse the pro-choice side of anything? I am the pro-choice side! I accused one specific person of special pleading on one specific point that was specifically about terminology and not about any specific trimester. Are you, like, keyword searching instead of reading?