Roe v Wade is on deck

[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.

If anything a gay marriage means lower costs than a straight marriage because you have fewer kids.

False. It means fewer pregnancies - but only for gay men. Lesbians frequently get artificial insemination and thus incur pregnancy costs. Gay men adopt or purchase surrogates with increasing regularity.

 

[Emily Lake]

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”?

JFC. My position, which I have stated very clearly multiple times is that abortion should be completely legal at the mother's discretion and with no legal barriers within the first two trimesters; in the third trimester it should be illegal except in cases where it's medically justified due to the non-viability of the fetus, considerable malformation and abnormality of the fetus, or a materially higher risk to the health of the mother.

How many times to I have to state my actual position before you get that it's my actual fucking position?

 

[Emily Lake]

“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 claimed that 1) nobody gets third trimester abortions, and 2) no doctor would do it because it's unethical. You claimed it doesn't happen at all - and you proceeded to carry on and on about how it's a non-issue.

But the actual reality is that it DOES happen. Those two women didn't know they were pregnant, but the fact remains that they terminated viable infants in the third trimester.

And I'm sorry if you feel differently, but in that third trimester, it's a fucking baby, not a lump of cells. And those women (along with at least three others mentioned in that paper) killed a baby that could have survived outside the womb. If you consider it an ":innocent mistake", that's your right, that's your view. You can hold that view.

But let's be clear about what your position is, and what it fucking means - it means that you are perfectly fine with voluntary terminations of healthy infants in the third trimester without a medical justification. You can hold that position - 19% of Americans hold that view. But at least fucking own it and be upfront about it instead of spending multiple pages haranguing me and insisting that it's a made-up problem that doesn't actually happen.

 

[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.

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

Gay marriages don't raise the rates at all. It's irrelevant, and even way back when a bunch of idiots were insisting it was a horrible sinful evil thing... from personal experience, insurance companies just didn't give a fuck. It doesn't make any difference.

 

[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?

You claimed that 1) nobody gets third trimester abortions, and 2) no doctor would do it because it's unethical. You claimed it doesn't happen at all - and you proceeded to carry on and on about how it's a non-issue.

But the actual reality is that it DOES happen. Those two women didn't know they were pregnant, but the fact remains that they terminated viable infants in the third trimester.

And I'm sorry if you feel differently, but in that third trimester, it's a fucking baby, not a lump of cells. And those women (along with at least three others mentioned in that paper) killed a baby that could have survived outside the womb. If you consider it an ":innocent mistake", that's your right, that's your view. You can hold that view.

But let's be clear about what your position is, and what it fucking means - it means that you are perfectly fine with voluntary terminations of healthy infants in the third trimester without a medical justification. You can hold that position - 19% of Americans hold that view. But at least fucking own it and be upfront about it instead of spending multiple pages haranguing me and insisting that it's a made-up problem that doesn't actually happen.

How much of that article did you actually READ. Emily?
It is clear about the damage done by barriers to abortion - especially early abortion. No amount of barriers is going to prevent someone from aborting a fetus they just found out about, believe to be days or weeks "old" and do not wish to carry for any of a multitude of reasons. All outlined in your article. It doesn't sound to me like there's any reason for litigation raised in those cases.

Also Emily please knock off the hyperbole if you’re going to complain when it’s used to raise points against you.
I said “vanishingly rare”.

 

[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 claimed that 1) nobody gets third trimester abortions, and 2) no doctor would do it because it's unethical. You claimed it doesn't happen at all - and you proceeded to carry on and on about how it's a non-issue.

But the actual reality is that it DOES happen. Those two women didn't know they were pregnant, but the fact remains that they terminated viable infants in the third trimester.

And I'm sorry if you feel differently, but in that third trimester, it's a fucking baby, not a lump of cells. And those women (along with at least three others mentioned in that paper) killed a baby that could have survived outside the womb. If you consider it an ":innocent mistake", that's your right, that's your view. You can hold that view.

But let's be clear about what your position is, and what it fucking means - it means that you are perfectly fine with voluntary terminations of healthy infants in the third trimester without a medical justification. You can hold that position - 19% of Americans hold that view. But at least fucking own it and be upfront about it instead of spending multiple pages haranguing me and insisting that it's a made-up problem that doesn't actually happen.

How much of that article did you actually READ. Emily?
It is clear about the damage done by barriers to abortion - especially early abortion. No amount of barriers is going to prevent someone from aborting a fetus they just found out about, believe to be days or weeks "old" and do not wish to carry for any of a multitude of reasons. All outlined in your article. It doesn't sound to me like there's any reason for litigation raised in those cases.

Also Emily please knock off the hyperbole if you’re going to complain when it’s used to raise points against you.
I said “vanishingly rare”.

Ahem...

 

[Elixir]

Ah yourself, Beave. Go read what “kind of abortion” you were railing about, and compare it to one of the cases described in E’s link. Then get back to me.
Meanwhile, if you like, I’ll find where I said vanishingly rare, if you insist.

 

[thebeave]

Ah yourself, Beave. Go read what “kind of abortion” you were railing about, and compare it to one of the cases described in E’s link. Then get back to me.
Meanwhile, if you like, I’ll find where I said vanishingly rare, if you insist.

I have said from the get-go that I was talking about 3rd trimester abortions wherein the health of the mother or baby was not an issue. Multiple people keep insisting I'm referring to 3rd trimester abortions to save the life of the mother or the fetus has severe abnormalities, which I have stated I am fine with. The cases I linked to do not fall into those categories. If you think differently about what I said, then show me, and I'll fire up the grill and eat a nice meal of crow.

 

[Elixir]

I have said from the get-go that I was talking about 3rd trimester abortions wherein the health of the mother or baby was not an issue.

Knowing that it was a 3rd trimester fetus would be a prerequisite in those cases as well.
Anyhow, I'm sticking with vanishingly rare, and reserve the right to say "doesn't happen" as reciprocal hyperbole.
There were est. 607 THOUSAND abortions last year in the US.

 

[Emily Lake]

“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 claimed that 1) nobody gets third trimester abortions, and 2) no doctor would do it because it's unethical. You claimed it doesn't happen at all - and you proceeded to carry on and on about how it's a non-issue.

But the actual reality is that it DOES happen. Those two women didn't know they were pregnant, but the fact remains that they terminated viable infants in the third trimester.

And I'm sorry if you feel differently, but in that third trimester, it's a fucking baby, not a lump of cells. And those women (along with at least three others mentioned in that paper) killed a baby that could have survived outside the womb. If you consider it an ":innocent mistake", that's your right, that's your view. You can hold that view.

But let's be clear about what your position is, and what it fucking means - it means that you are perfectly fine with voluntary terminations of healthy infants in the third trimester without a medical justification. You can hold that position - 19% of Americans hold that view. But at least fucking own it and be upfront about it instead of spending multiple pages haranguing me and insisting that it's a made-up problem that doesn't actually happen.

How much of that article did you actually READ. Emily?
It is clear about the damage done by barriers to abortion - especially early abortion. No amount of barriers is going to prevent someone from aborting a fetus they just found out about, believe to be days or weeks "old" and do not wish to carry for any of a multitude of reasons. All outlined in your article. It doesn't sound to me like there's any reason for litigation raised in those cases.

Also Emily please knock off the hyperbole if you’re going to complain when it’s used to raise points against you.
I said “vanishingly rare”.

Ahem...

“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.

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

So what? There’s no law against lots of things that don’t happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

Repeating the same thing you've already said still doesn't make it true.

 

[Elixir]

Ahem...

“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.

Have a problem with that Emily?

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

Or that? Please explain.

So what? There’s no law against lots of things that don’t happen.

And please show that not to be true and relevant.

ETA:
* I cited the wrong year's totals in a previous post. Last year there were about a million US abortions.
* Late term abortions total less than 1% of them

Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF

This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.

www.kff.org

It's uncertain whether bans cause more or fewer late term abortions, as lousy access causes delays and delays cause terms to be later... but maybe some women just say screw it I'll simply go ahead and have this terminally deformed fetus and watch it die, if I don't die too. /not hyperbole

It is very difficult to even imagine a scenario wherein anything gets any better for anyone because of the existence of abortion bans. And their human cost is undeniably astronomical.

 

[thebeave]

Here's a thought experiment for you to maybe get you to think about your own position. Let's say we have two 32 week fetuses. One is in a preemie incubator at a hospital and doing fine. The other is in its mother's womb, also doing fine. It sounds like from what you're saying, that you would be OK with aborting the 32 week fetus in the womb. How do you feel about pulling the plug on the incubator that's providing life support for the preemie baby? Would that count as a homicide to you, or not?

 

[laughing dog]

Since a fetus in the womb presents a health risk to the mother while the preemie in an incubator does not, there really is no comparison between the two scenarios unless the well-being of the mother doesn’t count.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Show proof.

Proof of a negative??? Show proof there's an invisible green leprechaun on your shoulder.

 

[Elixir]

Here's a thought experiment for you to maybe get you to think about your own position. Let's say we have two 32 week fetuses. One is in a preemie incubator at a hospital and doing fine. The other is in its mother's womb, also doing fine. It sounds like from what you're saying, that you would be OK with aborting the 32 week fetus in the womb. How do you feel about pulling the plug on the incubator that's providing life support for the preemie baby? Would that count as a homicide to you, or not?

WTAF??!!!

Take it from me, Beave. Nobody is okay with abortion. PERIOD
It’s a bummer beyond your imagination for at least one person and in our case, two people. Late term abortion? I can’t even imagine.

Now imagine;
Your two 32weekers both doing okay, but one was aborted by pills, because the mother thought she was only 8 weeks along. Jail the woman? What purpose does that serve?
Now imagine the number of such cases a criminal law would raise. Imagine the paralysis by legal analysis that would afflict doctors, killing possibly hundreds or thousands of living, breathing humans with relatives and friends …
ABORTION LAWS DON’T BENEFIT ANYONE

Abortions have increased since this last batch of bans. So if you don’t like that aspect of reproductive health care, please ask yourself why you’d favor something that puts upward pressure on it.

 

[thebeave]

Here's a thought experiment for you to maybe get you to think about your own position. Let's say we have two 32 week fetuses. One is in a preemie incubator at a hospital and doing fine. The other is in its mother's womb, also doing fine. It sounds like from what you're saying, that you would be OK with aborting the 32 week fetus in the womb. How do you feel about pulling the plug on the incubator that's providing life support for the preemie baby? Would that count as a homicide to you, or not?

WTAF??!!!

Take it from me, Beave. Nobody is okay with abortion. PERIOD
It’s a bummer beyond your imagination for at least one person and in our case, two people. Late term abortion? I can’t even imagine.

Now imagine;
Your two 32weekers both doing okay, but one was aborted by pills, because the mother thought she was only 8 weeks along. Jail the woman? What purpose does that serve?
Now imagine the number of such cases a criminal law would raise. Imagine the paralysis by legal analysis that would afflict doctors, killing possibly hundreds or thousands of living, breathing humans with relatives and friends …
ABORTION LAWS DON’T BENEFIT ANYONE

Abortions have increased since this last batch of bans. So if you don’t like that aspect of reproductive health care, please ask yourself why you’d favor something that puts upward pressure on it.

Then why did you say this, when I asked about third trimester elective abortions?:

https://iidb.org/threads/roe-v-wade-is-on-deck.24051/page-180#post-1206021

Immediately after that, about 4 other people chimed in and said they didn't care either. And yet here you are saying "Nobody is okay with abortion. PERIOD"

Something doesn't add up.

 

[bilby]

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,

Yes, absolutely.

When I said "her medical team agree that an abortion is appropriate and justified", obviously I meant that the mother should be allowed to make the decision entirely unilaterally and without consideration of any medical circumstances, or consultation with any medical professionals of any kind.

"Her medical team" obviously means "her, herself, alone, and with nobody else". Obviously.

How could you interpret it in any other way?

As a wise person once said:

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.

and that the law should have absolutely no say in whether or not her reasons are appropriate.

Is that your position?

One out of two ain't bad.

It is my actual position that "the law should have absolutely no say in whether or not her reasons are appropriate"; The law isn't qualified to make that determination, by definition, because laws are passed before the fact, and are fundamentally incapable of considering the details of individual cases.

The law should have absolutely no say; The specific medical professionals involved in each specific case should, of course, excercise their professional judegement, based on the specific medical risks to the mother, in each particular case (all of which will be different), and should have a say.

In a non-totalitarian, non-shithole country, it is neither necessary nor desireable for the law to have something to say about everything.

 

[Elixir]

Then why did you say this, when I asked about third trimester elective abortions?:

https://iidb.org/threads/roe-v-wade-is-on-deck.24051/page-180#post-1206021

OMFG I hope you’re playing dumb.
What I’m okay with is an absence of abortion laws. Please stop conflating That with being okay with abortion.
Where I’m okay with abortion is where it saved my wife’s life at least twice. That’s no fun and no bullshit. And abortion laws KILL people like her. ACTUAL PEOPLE.
Forgive me for valuing her life over that of the “unborn children” we “murdered” (per abortion law fans).

And I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how an abortion law made something better for someone. EVER.

B’cuz I can offer up numerous examples of grave harm wrought by abortion laws.

 

[Elixir]

it means that you are perfectly fine with voluntary terminations of healthy infants in the third trimester without a medical justification.

Bullshit, Emily.
I AM NOT OKAY WITH ABORTION
You’d best work that fact into your next prevarication.

Have you or your spouse ever had an abortion? No?
Then STFU.
UNLESS you can tell me about how abortion laws ever benefited anyone.

ABORTION LAWS KILL PEOPLE