Roe v Wade is on deck

[ZiprHead]

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.

Yes, it does. Insuring people from greater risk areas.
.A all c

 

[bilby]

It is not, and should not be, illegal to nail your own scrotum to the ceiling.

That does NOT imply that I plan to do it; That I advise others to do it; OR That I support others in their desire to do it - if, indeed any such persons exist.

It just isn't common enough, likely to ever become common enough, nor likely to do sufficient harm to society, to require a law.

Anyone seeking to pass such a law would immediately make me highly suspicious that they had a hidden agenda.

 

[Elixir]

It just isn't common enough, likely to ever become common enough, nor likely to do sufficient harm to society, to require a law.

Unless Republicans get a wild hair up their ass, and demand that everyone who owns a hammer must have it tested for scrotum residue.
(Because a Trump donor makes the testing equipment)

 

[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.

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.

Thank you for providing a linked article.

Here is one from a few years ago that I think is also informative.

The third trimester of pregnancy begins at Week 28. An abortion done before then isn't really 'late term' although with the advances in medicine, the point of fetal viability can be reached at week 23-24 if the mother has been healthy and the fetus developed normally. Abortions after the second trimester are done for medical reasons. I don't know of any place in the US where doctors won't try to save both the life of the woman and her fetus that late in a pregnancy.

Anti-abortion organizations have been making it sound like a pregnant woman can walk into a clinic at the 35th week of her pregnancy and demand an abortion because she's tired of not fitting into her clothes, and the doctors there will dilate her cervix so they can slip a scalpel into her uterus and start stabbing. It's horseshit. That is not what happens.

It's also misogynist. The argument is based on the notion that women are too stupid, selfish, vain, and immoral to make such weighty choices by themselves, so it's up to the government to restrain them from killing their own offspring and becoming miserable, childless cat ladies who want to make everyone else miserable, too.

And it is utterly ridiculous to put politicians in charge of making health care decisions for individuals even before they develop conditions which could require that care, especially when the politicians don't have the slightest idea of what appropriate health care is. Remember Rep. Todd Akin, who thought that women's bodies can shut down a pregnancy if the sex act that caused it meets his definition of "legitimate rape"?

Reasonable people in the US widely agree that abortion after the 25th week of pregnancy should be done only in cases where the life and health of the mother are endangered, and that the doctors should strive to save both the mother and her fetus. Unreasonable people insist on creating obstacles to timely health care, like demanding that doctors wait until a pregnant woman is known to be actually dying before intervening even when they know her fetus can't be saved.

 

[Elixir]

Unreasonable people insist on creating obstacles to timely health care, like demanding that doctors wait until a pregnant woman is known to be actually dying before intervening even when they know her fetus can't be saved.

Right.
On that, the downside of the equation, are thousands of people forced to suffer and sometimes die because of abortion bans.

Here are SOME EXAMPLES

On the upside … ?

I got nuthin’
Can someone PLEASE give me a list of say, a half dozen people who benefit from abortion bans?

Should I start another thread???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The problem is that you seem to be unable to tell the difference between "legal" as in leaving it up to the medical community to decide when it's appropriate and "legal" as "on demand".

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.

It's propaganda because you don't understand what it means.

It's not that we support on demand third trimester abortions. We don't. Rather, we trust the medical world an awful lot more than we trust the politicians.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html

As I said with another poster: The Republicans demand that you can't pull the chute until you're 800' AGL.

The outcome was certain but the doctors would not act until death was imminent. Cost her a trip to the ICU and probably cost her her fertility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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"?

Earlier today I linked an article about how that "medical justification" played out. Texas pushed her to the brink.

Let doctors determine what's a medical justification!

 

[Elixir]

Right now I’m a dog with a bone.

Who benefits from abortion bans?
Through what mechanisms are abortion bans supposed to be helpful to society?
If we have laws that cause harm to people and do not provide any benefit to people, shouldn’t they be stricken?

We are not in a battle regarding abortions; abortions will continue, regardless. We are in a battle regarding abortion bans. Some people like them, for assorted reasons.
Superstitious conviction of the holiness of human protoplasm, combined with a desire to impose those convictions on people who want nothing to do with them, seems to be the most common reason.

I keep asking what else there is on the benefits side of abortion bans. Because abortion bans kill people. Not blastocysts or embryos, real live people. So I think they should have to provide benefits exceeding the value of the lives of the people they kill.

Where are those benefits?
@Emily Lake?
@thebeave?
@nyone??!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No oopses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Numerous Project 2025 groups have falsely claimed that abortions are never medically necessary

www.mediamatters.org

A whole bunch of right wing groups lying about when an abortion is medically necessary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

I find that paper suspicious. No declaration about conflicts of interest, a small enough dataset that the whole thing could have been listed but it wasn't.

 

[Tigers!]

Unreasonable people insist on creating obstacles to timely health care, like demanding that doctors wait until a pregnant woman is known to be actually dying before intervening even when they know her fetus can't be saved.

Right.
On that, the downside of the equation, are thousands of people forced to suffer and sometimes die because of abortion bans.

Here are SOME EXAMPLES

On the upside … ?

I got nuthin’
Can someone PLEASE give me a list of say, a half dozen people who benefit from abortion bans?

Lawyers

Should I start another thread???

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

I find that paper suspicious. No declaration about conflicts of interest, a small enough dataset that the whole thing could have been listed but it wasn't.

The group behind the paper don't seem dubious. What they report is that third trimester abortions are not common, and there can be different reasons why they are sought out, as life isn't black and white.

Personally I support thebeave choosing to give birth to a baby when they found out they were pregnant 25 weeks into pregnancy.

Again, we are in a position where an odd amount of attention is being paid to rare circumstances, to the point it is choking off support for most cases. I personally don't care if someone supports abortion rights, when their votes went against abortion rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

JD Vance Suggests Caring About Abortion Rights Isn’t ‘Normal’

Speaking to Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Vance suggested women have more important things on their mind.

www.thedailybeast.com

Once again, the URL says it all. What planet is he from?!?! I continue to be amazed at how utterly disconnected from reality the QOP is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And, once again, we see why there are a decent number of people who say "no restrictions on abortion":

Judge blocks Ohio’s 24-hour wait period for abortions

Ohio judge block's state's 24-hour rule on abortions

www.cleveland.com

They already passed a constitutional amendment protecting abortion, yet the legislature is immediately trying to whittle away at it. Anything short of utterly unrestricted will be used as a camel's nose.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

You know what? Your rhetoric is tiring, and it's also demonstrably fucking false.

For decades of my life, we had pretty consistent and standard abortion laws throughout the entire country. For the majority of my life, abortion was legal within the first two trimesters, and was illegal during the last trimester except in cases where the mother's life was endangered.

That law, which was observably in place for most of my life as well as most of your life, did NOT "kill people".

It was a very reasonable, rational, and compassionate law, and it's a position that I very strongly support. Despite your frothing at the mouth vitriol, I do NOT support complete abortion bans.

So until you can learn to both read and comprehend, I suggest you take your own heartfelt advice and STFU

 

[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.

Yes, it does. Insuring people from greater risk areas.
.A all c

What? Your post doesn't make sense.

 

[Emily Lake]

Right now I’m a dog with a bone.

Who benefits from abortion bans?
Through what mechanisms are abortion bans supposed to be helpful to society?
If we have laws that cause harm to people and do not provide any benefit to people, shouldn’t they be stricken?

We are not in a battle regarding abortions; abortions will continue, regardless. We are in a battle regarding abortion bans. Some people like them, for assorted reasons.
Superstitious conviction of the holiness of human protoplasm, combined with a desire to impose those convictions on people who want nothing to do with them, seems to be the most common reason.

I keep asking what else there is on the benefits side of abortion bans. Because abortion bans kill people. Not blastocysts or embryos, real live people. So I think they should have to provide benefits exceeding the value of the lives of the people they kill.

Where are those benefits?
@Emily Lake?
@thebeave?
@nyone??!

Not a single poster in this thread supports abortion bans, so you're a dog with an imaginary bone.

 

[Toni]

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

You know what? Your rhetoric is tiring, and it's also demonstrably fucking false.

For decades of my life, we had pretty consistent and standard abortion laws throughout the entire country. For the majority of my life, abortion was legal within the first two trimesters, and was illegal during the last trimester except in cases where the mother's life was endangered.

That law, which was observably in place for most of my life as well as most of your life, did NOT "kill people".

It was a very reasonable, rational, and compassionate law, and it's a position that I very strongly support. Despite your frothing at the mouth vitriol, I do NOT support complete abortion bans.

So until you can learn to both read and comprehend, I suggest you take your own heartfelt advice and STFU

Well, no: abortions could be performed during the third trimester with restrictions if states chose to put restrictions in place.

That has been the law of the land since Roe v Wade, until it was overturned. Seems me states did things to make it difficult to obtain any abortion and especially late term abortions. Often those things included making it difficult to set up an abortion clinic and placing waiting periods, insisting that the person who was seeking an abortion read or view or listen to ‘information’ that was often inaccurate and highly judgmental before they could obtain an abortion, etc.

 

[Elixir]

Well, no: abortions could be performed during the third trimester with restrictions if states chose to put restrictions in place.

Those laws were never intrusive, and were never intended to be. They were closer to superfluous. The rarity of medically optional third term abortions made it so.
The whole playing filed is fucked up now; Justices Thomas' and Alito's noses are under the tent, and good religious people are about to let the whole corrupt herd of camels into your doctor's office, your house, your kids' schools - the whole ball of wax.