laughing dog
Contributor
That is a big "IF". pulled right out the ether.
-
Features
Roe v Wade is on deck
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
thebeave
Contributor
Adds up to a significantly more than zero number of OBs who will do these late term abortions. Ziprhead seems to think there are zero.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Women with complications in states where there is no abortion are going to die, Tubal pregnancies for example are going to kill women. It will add up, don't you think?
thebeave
Contributor
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Late term abortions are only an issue if you assume the reasons for them are trivial, selfish, or inhumane.Adds up to a significantly more than zero number of OBs who will do these late term abortions. Ziprhead seems to think there are zero.
Adds up to what?
I have a family member who had a late term abortion. A prenatal exam revealed her fetus had developmental defects that were 'incompatible with life'. She continued her pregnancy for a few more weeks despite the risk to herself so that her fetus' lungs would develop. She wanted to make sure there was a least a chance he could survive, but had to undergo a ceasarean delivery when her own health started failing. Post mortem confirmed blood clots in the umbilical cord, missing organs, organs outside of the body, and more.
Is there anyone here who objects to the health care my relative received?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 42,188
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
A North Carolina Republican who mocked women for abortions runs ad with his wife's own story
A new commercial by Mark Robinson, North Carolina Republican's nominee for governor, is seeking to counter ads by Democratic rival Josh Stein criticizing his abortion views.
apnews.com
thebeave
Contributor
Not me. But we were talking about the seven states where there are no limitations on abortions.Late term abortions are only an issue if you assume the reasons for them are trivial, selfish, or inhumane.Adds up to a significantly more than zero number of OBs who will do these late term abortions. Ziprhead seems to think there are zero.
Adds up to what?
I have a family member who had a late term abortion. A prenatal exam revealed her fetus had developmental defects that were 'incompatible with life'. She continued her pregnancy for a few more weeks despite the risk to herself so that her fetus' lungs would develop. She wanted to make sure there was a least a chance he could survive, but had to undergo a ceasarean delivery when her own health started failing. Post mortem confirmed blood clots in the umbilical cord, missing organs, organs outside of the body, and more.
Is there anyone here who objects to the health care my relative received?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 42,188
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Prove it with verified numbers.Adds up to a significantly more than zero number of OBs who will do these late term abortions. Ziprhead seems to think there are zero.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
That's my point. Must have flown to fast, too high and too quiet. I'd also like to see numbers of women dying because of complications in states where abortion tolerance is zero. If you're gonna argue something you must have some facts to back it up.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,518
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No you weren't.
You were talking about the seven states where there are no legal limitations on abortions.
The law has no business in this sphere at all; If a preganant woman and her medical team agree that an abortion is appropriate and justified, why would anyone want the law to contradict both that professional medical advice, and the opinion of the person most directly affected by the decision?
All the reasons why they might want the law to do that are antithetical to personal freedom, and/or are an unwarranted interference by people who have no business attempting to influence the decision in any way.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
From Pew Research. 63% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This may very well be a very big problem for the GOP in November.
www.pewresearch.org
Abortion - Research and data from Pew Research Center
Research and data on Abortion from Pew Research Center
www.pewresearch.org
lpetrich
Contributor
Laura Loomer on X: "Kamala Harris ..." / X
Franklin on X: "@LauraLoomer The same reason Ivanka Trump’s last name isn’t Kushner." / X
and
Mohan Pandit
on X: "@LauraLoomer She has an identity which pre-dates and is distinct from her husband's and is married to a real man who has no problems in acknowledging the same. Self awareness/respect is probably really hard for you to comprehend." / X
She got a lot of pushback, like this:
Franklin on X: "@LauraLoomer The same reason Ivanka Trump’s last name isn’t Kushner." / X
and
Mohan Pandit
on X: "@LauraLoomer She has an identity which pre-dates and is distinct from her husband's and is married to a real man who has no problems in acknowledging the same. Self awareness/respect is probably really hard for you to comprehend." / X
Arctish
Centimillionaire
Shadowy Man
Contributor
If these are their best criticisms they are really in trouble.
laughing dog
Contributor
It adds up to zilch because your arithmetic is based on guesses not actual data.Adds up to a significantly more than zero number of OBs who will do these late term abortions. Ziprhead seems to think there are zero.
Which is not remotely a rebuttal to what I said.Um... no. I don't know what the hell lie you're talking about, but 19% of people in the US think that abortion should be 100% legal with no exceptions at all.
America’s Abortion Quandary
A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances.
And what actually happens is fetal defect abortions.How often something is selected is not the same as discussing whether or not is should be allowed to be selected. There are seven states in the US right now where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no limitations at all.
Abortion law in the United States by state - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
thebeave
Contributor
So, I'm supposed to go through the trouble of finding the true number of doctors in the US who will do these elective late term abortions so as to disprove your unverifed, unsubstantiated claim that there are zero doctors who will perform these late term abortions? Isn't the process supposed to start with you by demonstrating it is zero? I think yours is the more extraordinary claim, not mine.Prove it with verified numbers.Adds up to a significantly more than zero number of OBs who will do these late term abortions. Ziprhead seems to think there are zero.
Look at it this way. Per the Wikipedia article, there are seven states for which abortion is legal at any stage. For example, lets look at what it says for Oregon:
And yet you know somehow that not a single doctor in those 20 facilities would do it? And why would Oregon establish an abortion law with no major restrictions at all stages of pregnancy, given that there are no doctors who would do it? Doesn't really make much sense. Why not just go with the more conventional, sensible rule where its legal through the second trimester, with restrictions in the third trimester for the woman's (or man's) health instead?
Also, the fact that you had only heard one case of this happening doesn't really mean much. Abortions tend to be a private affair, just between doctor and patient. Not to mention very restrictive medical privacy laws. And for the very late term abortions, it would be even more so, no?
laughing dog
Contributor
Ziprhead stated his belief; you stated yours. While beliefs are more convincing with supporting factual evidence, belief does not require factual support - that is why it is called belief not knowledge.So, I'm supposed to go through the trouble of finding the true number of doctors in the US who will do these elective late term abortions so as to disprove your unverifed, unsubstantiated claim that there are zero doctors who will perform these late term abortions? Isn't the process supposed to start with you by demonstrating it is zero? I think yours is the more extraordinary claim, not mine.Prove it with verified numbers.Adds up to a significantly more than zero number of OBs who will do these late term abortions. Ziprhead seems to think there are zero.
Ignoring the numerical assumptions, it relies crucially on the behavioural assumption that because a physician may legally perform an abortion at any time, a physician will do so for any reason.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Yes, you are to do that because you are claiming harm. So stop bullshitting and do it.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,630
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I find it to be near the height of dishonesty to claim that the people who think abortion should not happen "in certain situations" justifies the implementation of laws.
The best advice, the thing that licensed medical professionals in obstetrics should learn right alongside the Hippocratic Oath should be "if immediate induction of pregnancy would lead to a live if premature baby, it should stay in until it's done, so long as when it IS done there is someone who has consented to the responsibility to raise the child."
This arises because of a system of factors:
1. People have a right to evict parasitic squatters even if this results in their death.
2. People have a right to a healthy and happy childhood to the best of the ability of those responsible for them.
3. People have a right to deliver charity on any life society does not deem non-grata.
Aborting something which will survive on its own under the provision of available and consenting charity will violate (3).
Inducing an early delivery so as to deliver the child to charity early will violate (2).
Therefore (1) sees it's limit when there IS available charity, and the result of induction would not be death.
This is not something we can legislate, however, because of the chilling effect on the ability to abort questionably viable pregnancies which may threaten the life of the mother. The ambiguity in the presence of a clear priority for the living adult over the fetus means the doctor's judgement must not be fettered by the law in this case.
This means that the law should offer, at best, nonbinding guidance to doctors.
Should an abortion be allowed (by the doctors) in all cases? No. Should the law be capable of enforcing that? Fuck no.
I am one of the most vigorous supporters of the philosophical right to abort a child that I have ever met. I argue this right on strong principles, with a foundation that nobody ought be forced to submit to a parasitic process, and that pregnancy is a parasitic process, and yet I would be represented by the false statistics often touted that "most people believe abortion should be restricted".
This would mean that such statistics, owing to their lack of specificity, are spoken in bad faith.
I would expect the people who bring up such statistics (a few of which whom are present here) stop doing so, as they misrepresent a very strong pro-choice cohort as anti-choice, and are thus lies (or at at least lies now that the dishonesty behind them has been revealed).
The best advice, the thing that licensed medical professionals in obstetrics should learn right alongside the Hippocratic Oath should be "if immediate induction of pregnancy would lead to a live if premature baby, it should stay in until it's done, so long as when it IS done there is someone who has consented to the responsibility to raise the child."
This arises because of a system of factors:
1. People have a right to evict parasitic squatters even if this results in their death.
2. People have a right to a healthy and happy childhood to the best of the ability of those responsible for them.
3. People have a right to deliver charity on any life society does not deem non-grata.
Aborting something which will survive on its own under the provision of available and consenting charity will violate (3).
Inducing an early delivery so as to deliver the child to charity early will violate (2).
Therefore (1) sees it's limit when there IS available charity, and the result of induction would not be death.
This is not something we can legislate, however, because of the chilling effect on the ability to abort questionably viable pregnancies which may threaten the life of the mother. The ambiguity in the presence of a clear priority for the living adult over the fetus means the doctor's judgement must not be fettered by the law in this case.
This means that the law should offer, at best, nonbinding guidance to doctors.
Should an abortion be allowed (by the doctors) in all cases? No. Should the law be capable of enforcing that? Fuck no.
I am one of the most vigorous supporters of the philosophical right to abort a child that I have ever met. I argue this right on strong principles, with a foundation that nobody ought be forced to submit to a parasitic process, and that pregnancy is a parasitic process, and yet I would be represented by the false statistics often touted that "most people believe abortion should be restricted".
This would mean that such statistics, owing to their lack of specificity, are spoken in bad faith.
I would expect the people who bring up such statistics (a few of which whom are present here) stop doing so, as they misrepresent a very strong pro-choice cohort as anti-choice, and are thus lies (or at at least lies now that the dishonesty behind them has been revealed).