Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Last couple of months it might. But nobody's aborting such if they're not severely damaged.

Exactly. The kind of “abortion” that @thebeave opposes, doesn’t happen.

...but what about ritual human sacrifice? It is a slippery slope!

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

That doesn't mean it's actually happening. Do you think there are obstetricians out there who would actually abort and kill a nine month unborn baby just because mom says so? I've only heard of one such person and he went to jail for a very long time.

You've fallen for the propaganda.

I've fallen for the "propaganda" from Wikipedia and Pew Research? I've fallen for the "propaganda" that it is legal in seven states? I've fallen for the "propaganda" by explicitly pointing out that there's a difference between the legality of a thing and whether or not the thing actually happens?

Honestly, it seems more like you're trying to throw out nastiness to cover the fact that you're just plain wrong on this. You're trying to throw shade at me to cover your own ass.

My actual position, which was not subtle or vague in any way, was that I don't think it should be *legal* throughout the entire pregnancy except in cases where it's medically justified. I'm very much pro-choice-to-a-point. As are the majority of people - including women - in the US. It's an entirely reasonable position, that is not at all indicative of "propaganda". And noting that 19% of people actually do think it should be *legal* up until moments before birth, and that 7 states have ZERO limitations is not at all propaganda. It's disingenuous of you to say that it is.

 

[Emily Lake]

Adds up to what?

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.

Late term abortions are only an issue if you assume the reasons for them are trivial, selfish, or inhumane.

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?

Not that I'm aware of. It's an entirely reasonable and compassionate thing to do.

 

[Emily Lake]

But we were talking about the seven states where there are no limitations on abortions.

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.

Based on this, it appears that you support the mother's right to choose an abortion for any reason whatsoever, and that the law should have absolutely no say in whether or not her reasons are appropriate.

Is that your position?

 

[Emily Lake]

There are seven states in the US right now where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no limitations at all.

Can you point to a number of 3rd trimester optional abortions performed in those states?
Didn’t think so.
But let’s have monthly vaginal inspections of all our chattel women by a House Committee elder just to make sure they’re not killing microscopic blobs of protoplasm.

Well this is simply an idiotic response. It bears no resemblance to my position whatsoever. This is just one more instance where you feel justified inventing things out of whole cloth with which to falsely attack me.

How hard is it to just stick with what's actually said instead of resorting to making shit up about other posters?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

That doesn't mean it's actually happening. Do you think there are obstetricians out there who would actually abort and kill a nine month unborn baby just because mom says so? I've only heard of one such person and he went to jail for a very long time.

You've fallen for the propaganda.

If 19% of the general population is OK with it, then wouldn't one assume that, roughly, 19% of obstetricians in those seven states are OK with it? Granted, likely some of them are OK with it being legal, but would not do it themselves. Regardless, if only 1% of OB/GYNs in those seven states actually would approve and are doing it, that still adds up. So, I would say the answer to your question is most certainly "yes".

Because most if not all of those 19% know that viable late term pregnancies will end up with delivery, not abortion. Nobody's going to abort a healthy late term fetus. It's better that it be a medical decision than a legal decision. When it's a legal decision we see what's actually happening in Texas--doesn't matter if it's doomed, push her to the brink. Some are going to fall over that brink.

This is fucking ridiculous. There's absolutely no need to assume that the only possible options are "fully legal at any point, no reservations" and "absolutely no abortions even if everyone is going to die". It's an absurd false dichotomy.

Seriously, how the fuck hard is it to go with "totally your choice within the first two trimesters, but needs medical justification after that"?

 

[Emily Lake]

In the states where there's no legal restriction the number is zero.

Show proof.

 

[laughing dog]

But we were talking about the seven states where there are no limitations on abortions.

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.

Based on this, it appears that you support the mother's right to choose an abortion for any reason whatsoever, and that the law should have absolutely no say in whether or not her reasons are appropriate.

Is that your position?

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.

That doesn't mean it's actually happening. Do you think there are obstetricians out there who would actually abort and kill a nine month unborn baby just because mom says so? I've only heard of one such person and he went to jail for a very long time.

You've fallen for the propaganda.

If 19% of the general population is OK with it, then wouldn't one assume that, roughly, 19% of obstetricians in those seven states are OK with it? Granted, likely some of them are OK with it being legal, but would not do it themselves. Regardless, if only 1% of OB/GYNs in those seven states actually would approve and are doing it, that still adds up. So, I would say the answer to your question is most certainly "yes".

Because most if not all of those 19% know that viable late term pregnancies will end up with delivery, not abortion. Nobody's going to abort a healthy late term fetus. It's better that it be a medical decision than a legal decision. When it's a legal decision we see what's actually happening in Texas--doesn't matter if it's doomed, push her to the brink. Some are going to fall over that brink.

This is fucking ridiculous. There's absolutely no need to assume that the only possible options are "fully legal at any point, no reservations" and "absolutely no abortions even if everyone is going to die". It's an absurd false dichotomy.

Seriously, how the fuck hard is it to go with "totally your choice within the first two trimesters, but needs medical justification after that"?

It’s not hard. But there is no evidence presented to indicate that is not the de facto practice in those 7 states. Contrast that concern with the silence over the 18 states that have effectively banned abortion after 6 weeks wjich has demonstrated adverse health effects on women.

Personally, I’d consider the alleged issues with the no limits approach seriously when severe limitation laws are relaxed or lifted.

 

[Playball40]

except when the fetus/baby is well past the point of viability. Which is kind of what this discussion has been focused on.

Can you find, say, a dozen such cases since … forever? B’cuz the horror stories from women in abortion ban States just keep on coming.
“Aborting” a viable healthy baby would be unethical; the doctor would almost certainly lose their license. And probably illegal, without any “abortion ban”. If the baby is viable, it is delivered.

It is illegal and doesn't happen. It wasn't even legal under Roe v Wade, so they are arguing an NON ISSUE.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is a perfect “solution” to this manufactured “problem”. The question “why are there loose abortion laws if nobody wants them” is leading and presumptive. It assumes that there is some reason for abortion laws, which there isn’t.

I actually disagree. There are reasons to have some abortion laws - one of those reason is that at some point in the pregnancy, it's a baby, not a fetus. At some point in development, it's no longer a non-sentient blob of tissue, but is actually a life.

If there is a real medical reason to terminate a pregnancy two weeks before the due date - by all means do so! There should not be any situation in which a woman is required to risk her own life in order to deliver a child, nor in which she should be required to carry a non-viable infant to full term! I find that notion abhorrent.

But I also find it abhorrent for someone to terminate the life of an otherwise healthy infant when that infant is able to survive outside of the womb.

That's why the vast majority of women in the US support ensuring a woman's right to an abortion within the first two trimesters, but do NOT support it during the third trimester except in cases of medical need.

 

[Emily Lake]

With the Roberts Court, can't tell if her complete lack of standing will matter.

Makes me ponder who can challenge it? People are literally not harmed by gay marriage.

Yeah, it's basically the ultimate example of a victimless activity.

Insurance companies that are required to provide marital benefits.

It doesn't harm insurance companies at all. The sexes of the parties involved in a joint policy don't matter one whit.

 

[Emily Lake]

With the Roberts Court, can't tell if her complete lack of standing will matter.

Makes me ponder who can challenge it? People are literally not harmed by gay marriage.

Yeah, it's basically the ultimate example of a victimless activity.

Insurance companies that are required to provide marital benefits.

That would be an example of a party harmed by marriage.

That the effects of marriage in law may cause harm is not evidence of harm arising specifically from gay marriage.

Unless you can think of a benefit that insurance companies are required to provide to married gay policyholders, but are not also required to provide to married heterosexual policyholders.

It's more likely to be employers bitching about gay marriage than insurance companies. Employers would be required to offer spousal coverage to people who would otherwise not qualify - and that costs the employer money since they almost always subsidize the premiums in some way. The insurer doesn't care, they get paid regardless of whether it's two men, two women, or one of each.

Insurers might complain if poly-marriages were legalized, because most current types of coverage have a family tiering structure that assumes two adults, and then some kids. On the other hand... it wouldn't be too difficult to change gears to a list-based pricing method and then the insurer wouldn't care anymore.

 

[Elixir]

Can you point to a number of 3rd trimester optional abortions performed in those states?
Didn’t think so.
But let’s have monthly vaginal inspections of all our chattel women by a House Committee elder just to make sure they’re not killing microscopic blobs of protoplasm.

Well this is simply an idiotic response. It bears no resemblance to my position whatsoever.

Okay Emily, I’ll bite:

There are seven states in the US right now where abortion is legal at any point in the pregnancy, with no limitations at all.

So what? There’s no law against lots of things that don’t happen. What’s your supposed ”position”?

 

[Arctish]

But I also find it abhorrent for someone to terminate the life of an otherwise healthy infant when that infant is able to survive outside of the womb.

Show us an instance where that happened and we'll discuss it.

That's why the vast majority of women in the US support ensuring a woman's right to an abortion within the first two trimesters, but do NOT support it during the third trimester except in cases of medical need.

Show us someone who supports infanticide and we'll discuss that, too.

 

[Elixir]

Show us someone who supports infanticide and we'll discuss that, too.

And … think about it?
Someone who supports infanticide?
Would you want their kids going to your kid’s school?!

 

[thebeave]

But I also find it abhorrent for someone to terminate the life of an otherwise healthy infant when that infant is able to survive outside of the womb.

Show us an instance where that happened and we'll discuss it.

That's why the vast majority of women in the US support ensuring a woman's right to an abortion within the first two trimesters, but do NOT support it during the third trimester except in cases of medical need.

Show us someone who supports infanticide and we'll discuss that, too.

Two cases from here, just to get started:

Is third-trimester abortion exceptional? Two pathways to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the United States

The new information respondents received that led to their decision to obtain an abortion was not exclusively related to fetal health. For some respondents, the new information they obtained was that they were pregnant. Autumn, a 22-year-old white woman in the West, was having a regular period but felt a bit “off,” as she put it. She stopped by the local health clinic and took a pregnancy test, which came back positive. She and her husband discussed the pregnancy and, she said, “We both decided to get an abortion.” She made an appointment at a nearby abortion clinic. The ultrasound worker at the clinic thought she was early in pregnancy, opting to conduct a transvaginal ultrasound, which is preferred for diagnosing and dating early pregnancies. Then, Autumn explained, the ultrasound worker “Kind of got like a confused face and she was like stuttering and she was sounded very like worried.” Autumn was not early in pregnancy. Based on the subsequent abdominal ultrasound the clinic worker conducted, she was 26 weeks into her pregnancy. Autumn was shocked and confused. She said, “I immediately burst into tears “cause I was like, “How is this possible?” Autumn sought an abortion in the third trimester because she did not know she needed one until then.

Veronica, a 21-year-old Latina woman in the South, also did not realize she was pregnant until she was in the third trimester of pregnancy. Veronica was dating someone new and wanted to get tested for sexually transmitted infections before commencing a sexual relationship with this man. The clinic also ran a pregnancy test, which was positive. Veronica was shocked. She explained that she had no recognizable pregnancy symptoms and had been having a regular period: “It seemed to me like regular periods because it lasted the same amount of time that they would usually last […] and I never got morning sickness. I wasn't lethargic.” Veronica was immediately clear that she did not want to continue the pregnancy and took the first available abortion appointment at the clinic. When Veronica presented for her abortion appointment, the ultrasound worker determined that she was 25 weeks pregnant. Veronica needed an abortion in the third trimester because the fact that she was pregnant was new information to her when she was already 25 weeks pregnant.

 

[Elixir]

“Autumn sought an abortion in the third trimester because she did not know she needed one until then.”

She thought she was early in the pregnancy. So let’s definitely criminalize that kind of innocent mistake!

Same thing happened to Veronica.

So my question remains.

So what?

 

[lostone]

With the Roberts Court, can't tell if her complete lack of standing will matter.

Makes me ponder who can challenge it? People are literally not harmed by gay marriage.

Yeah, it's basically the ultimate example of a victimless activity.

Insurance companies that are required to provide marital benefits.

That would be an example of a party harmed by marriage.

That the effects of marriage in law may cause harm is not evidence of harm arising specifically from gay marriage.

Unless you can think of a benefit that insurance companies are required to provide to married gay policyholders, but are not also required to provide to married heterosexual policyholders.

It's more likely to be employers bitching about gay marriage than insurance companies. Employers would be required to offer spousal coverage to people who would otherwise not qualify - and that costs the employer money since they almost always subsidize the premiums in some way. The insurer doesn't care, they get paid regardless of whether it's two men, two women, or one of each.

Insurers might complain if poly-marriages were legalized, because most current types of coverage have a family tiering structure that assumes two adults, and then some kids. On the other hand... it wouldn't be too difficult to change gears to a list-based pricing method and then the insurer wouldn't care anymore.

OTOH, gay marriages aren't all that common, and because of that, would not raise the rates that much.

 

[thebeave]

“Autumn sought an abortion in the third trimester because she did not know she needed one until then.”

She thought she was early in the pregnancy. So let’s definitely criminalize that kind of innocent mistake!

Same thing happened to Veronica.

So my question remains.

So what?

You and others said, "It does not happen". It does happen for non-medical related reasons and its legal to do so in several states. Maybe you better get some assistance with those goal posts. They can be heavy and you wouldn't want to strain your back.

 

[Emily Lake]

except when the fetus/baby is well past the point of viability. Which is kind of what this discussion has been focused on.

Can you find, say, a dozen such cases since … forever? B’cuz the horror stories from women in abortion ban States just keep on coming.
“Aborting” a viable healthy baby would be unethical; the doctor would almost certainly lose their license. And probably illegal, without any “abortion ban”. If the baby is viable, it is delivered.

Well... there are several noted in this research study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/

Of the 28 women interviewed, they fell into two thematic groups: Those who gained new information in the third trimester, and those who faced barriers to obtaining an earlier termination.

They don't provide actual counts for the categories, but do present some case studies. For the group that gained new information, four cases are presented. Two had third trimester terminations for medical reasons. Two terminated in the last trimester because the hadn't known they were pregnant before then - but there was nothing wrong with the fetus, and no risk to the mother's health or life.

For the second group, they present three cases. All of them involved otherwise healthy fetuses. The reasons for the late terminations ranged across a lack of funds, distance required, and fear of other people knowing they were pregnant. All of them involved mothers who would have preferred to terminate at an earlier stage.

There are also cases listed that involve both themes - new information later in the pregnancy (usually mid to late second trimester) and barriers to obtaining a timely abortion.

At the end of the day, however, your assertion that no doctors would abort a health baby in the third trimester is patently false. They can, and do - and did in at least five cases out of 28 interviews.

I am quite strongly opposed to complete abortion bans, and I think they should be completely up to the mother at any point during the first two trimesters. But beyond that, I think it's completely reasonable and appropriate to limit pregnancy terminations to only situations where it's medically necessary. If the fetus is healthy and the mother is not at risk, I don't think they should be allowed to terminate.