Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

In this post, you criticize me because you feel that I have portrayed you as a monster. But in the exact same post, mere moment later, you feel entirely justified painting me as a monster yet again. Be less hypocritical.

How is it "painting you as a monster" to describe your desire to have a legal rule as "authoritarian"? That's what the word "authoritarian" means.

Or are you saying that you don't want there to be a legally defined cut off date after which abortions are unlawful, and that my suggesting that you do paints you as a monster?

1) I want there to be a reasonable point after which abortions are *limited* - which is exactly the legal position of your own country.
2) I can read, you can read, everyone can read, bilby. This is what you wrote, and what I objected to:

I understand your hatred of freedom commitment to rule of law, but as I don't share your authoritarian bent, I don't agree with it at all.

Are you trying to pretend that the stikethrough portion of that was NOT intended to insult and denigrate me? That it was NOT intended to portray me as evil?

If I feel upset that you have portrayed me as a monster, it is not hypocritical for me to then accurately describe your position, such that you feel that that description is monstrous.

If you were accurately describing my position, I would not perceive you as portraying me as monstrous, nor would I be annoyed by it. It's the fact that you keep inaccurately portraying my position that is the problem.

If you desire to limit freedom by the passing of laws then you are an authoritarian. That's what the word means.

If you feel that "authoritarian" is synonymous with "monster", then the problem would appear to be that you are painting yourself as a monster...

Lol, now you're taking the position that "authoritarian" is just a totally neutral term and it really just means "thinks there should be laws" so nobody would ever be offended by that? That's bullshit, and you know it - its a term that gets used *here* as a definite and direct insult, and used to imply someone who is only steps away from fascism. Don't try to pretend that this is a mystery to you, and don't try to gloss over your own bad behavior.

 

[Toni]

If you or I went into a hospital or clinic and demanded our left arm be removed, no one would do that. Or give our 11 year old son double D breast implants or a vasectomy for example, just to be absurd. If I went into my local clinic with a partially amputated finger, they'd stabilize me and send me to a well equipped hospital because they lack the appropriate facilities and expertise to provide the optimal outcome.

Or you know... if your 11 year old son didn't want to go through puberty, and wanted to be chemically castrated, or if your 13 year old daughter decided she wanted a bilateral mastectomy? Or if your 17 year old son wanted a complete penectomy and orchiectomy? No doctor would ever do those things... right?

Doctors do not typically perform life altering medical procedures on minors without parental consent and then, only when such procedures fall under established medical guidelines.

 

[Elixir]

Your complete lack of self-awareness is astonishing.

I am not the subject under discussion. Neither is bilby or any other poster, so save your fingers if all you can contribute is ad hom insults.
Address the points, if you can. So far you are one great big fat
FAIL.

 

[laughing dog]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

IMO, I can only speculate about what I would do as a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term or what I would do as a physician who was asked to perform an abortion under ( insert circumstance).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

But both the woman and the doctor have agreed it's reasonable - therefore you also agree it's reasonable. That's what you've said, that's the position you've taken.

What part of this do you disagree with? Would you like to alter your prior statement?

You wrote “it’s just fine, no problem. It’s perfectly reasonable.” I believe Toni’s position is that it is reasonable to allow the woman and the medical professional to decide. That does not imply Toni believes any decision is just fine or no problem. It means it is a private matter between a woman and a health care professional.

 

[Elixir]

Emily “favors limits” according to Emily. I think everyone participating in this discussion “favors limits”, contrary to how Emily wants to portray those with whom she disagrees.
The difference of opinion lies in who imposes the limits, how the limits are “enforced” and what the repercussions are for violating those limits.
Emily favors (apparently -she won’t say clearly) that legislators place the limits, law enforcement imposes the limits and courts specify repercussions for violating the limits.
My “self awareness” is mysteriously called into question when I point out that doing as Em suggests has been done, it doesn’t work to anyone’s benefit and leads directly to suffering and death.
When pressed on that, Em claims I am demanding “all the answers” as if it’s too big a problem to address even in hypotheticals.
My “self awareness” is at fault for providing data to support my assertions and asking that she do the same - or at least make a token effort to do so.

This is what I call playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[Elixir]

give me one single scenario in which you personally believe that a reasonable doctor would be expected to refuse to perform an abortion

1) late in the term when there is no reason for an abortion.
2) any time an abortion is unnecessary and not desired by the pregnant person
3) when the woman is already in labor and delivery poses no unreasonable risk IN THE DOCTOR’S OPINION.

 

[Emily Lake]

In what way do you think this is overriding the doctor's opinion?

By the introduction of a delay.

I have not introduced a delay - this is something I've clarified repeatedly, so you are once again INACCURATELY presenting my position, and at this point, I have to conclude that it's intentional mischaracterization.

Time is of the essence, and the anti-abortion lobby knows full well that if they can drag things out in court for long enough, the result will go their way by default.

Justice delayed is justice denied, and never more so than in the case of legal wrangling over whether or not to grant someone the right to an abortion.

Justice is best served by denying the courts and the legislature any input at all, prior to the act.

I gather this is why your country has no legal restrictions on abortion... oh wait...

 

[Emily Lake]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

IMO, I can only speculate about what I would do as a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term or what I would do as a physician who was asked to perform an abortion under ( insert circumstance).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

But both the woman and the doctor have agreed it's reasonable - therefore you also agree it's reasonable. That's what you've said, that's the position you've taken.

What part of this do you disagree with? Would you like to alter your prior statement?

I don’t believe your inference.

Seriously Emily, I don’t know why you work so hard to misrepresent what other people are saying but I’m not playing your game any more.

It's not intended to be a misrepresentation, Toni. It's the logical consequence of what you stated.

You stated that you believe what is reasonable is anything that the doctor and patient decide is reasonable. The actual logical consequence of your statement is that if the doctor and the patient agree that it is *reasonable* to abort a 35 week healthy fetus who does not present any known risks to the mother, then you agree that the abortion is reasonable.

If you do not agree that such an action would be reasonable in your eyes, then I would absolutely love for you to restate your viewpoint to be more clear.

Here's the deal: I don't think that you actually believe that would be reasonable. I believe that you personally would think it entirely unreasonable for a health mother to abort a healthy fetus at 35 weeks - and that's a very sensible and compassionate view to hold! It's a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of women across the entire planet.

Why is it so difficult for you (and others) to just give their honest opinions? None of us are lawmakers, it's not like we're going to break the world. But if we can't even get to a point where we're comfortable saying "In my opinion, I don't think that's reasonable" we can't have a meaningful discussion. At this point, I'd be overjoyed to get "I personally don't think that particular scenario would be reasonable, but there might be additional complications I haven't thought of".

 

[Toni]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

IMO, I can only speculate about what I would do as a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term or what I would do as a physician who was asked to perform an abortion under ( insert circumstance).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

But both the woman and the doctor have agreed it's reasonable - therefore you also agree it's reasonable. That's what you've said, that's the position you've taken.

What part of this do you disagree with? Would you like to alter your prior statement?

I don’t believe your inference.

Seriously Emily, I don’t know why you work so hard to misrepresent what other people are saying but I’m not playing your game any more.

It's not intended to be a misrepresentation, Toni. It's the logical consequence of what you stated.

You stated that you believe what is reasonable is anything that the doctor and patient decide is reasonable. The actual logical consequence of your statement is that if the doctor and the patient agree that it is *reasonable* to abort a 35 week healthy fetus who does not present any known risks to the mother, then you agree that the abortion is reasonable.

If you do not agree that such an action would be reasonable in your eyes, then I would absolutely love for you to restate your viewpoint to be more clear.

Here's the deal: I don't think that you actually believe that would be reasonable. I believe that you personally would think it entirely unreasonable for a health mother to abort a healthy fetus at 35 weeks - and that's a very sensible and compassionate view to hold! It's a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of women across the entire planet.

Why is it so difficult for you (and others) to just give their honest opinions? None of us are lawmakers, it's not like we're going to break the world. But if we can't even get to a point where we're comfortable saying "In my opinion, I don't think that's reasonable" we can't have a meaningful discussion. At this point, I'd be overjoyed to get "I personally don't think that particular scenario would be reasonable, but there might be additional complications I haven't thought of".

Why is it so impossible for you to realize just how arrogant and insulting it is for you to assert that you know better than I do what I really believe?

Do you not see how remarkably well this coincides with your belief that you know what the market ‘right’ course of action is for every woman who is 35 weeks pregnant?

While I may know what I would do if I were 35 weeks pregnant and felt I could no longer continue the pregnancy, I’m not in that situation and I have enough humility to realize that circumstances I might not imagine could exist that would make termination a reasonable choice for some women.

I also recognize and trust that there are safeguards in place that would make such an abortion vanishingly rare. Doctors also have personal and professional ethics and are further guided by their hospital and the AMA, A circumstance that would motivate a physician to perform an abortion must be indeed overwhelming.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily “favors limits” according to Emily. I think everyone participating in this discussion “favors limits”, contrary to how Emily wants to portray those with whom she disagrees.
The difference of opinion lies in who imposes the limits, how the limits are “enforced” and what the repercussions are for violating those limits.

Well, the "difference of opinion" also lies in the fact that you (and others) say you "favor limits" but you refuse to actually discuss what those limits might be, or how they might be implemented. At best, you end up saying that the limits should be whatever the doctor and patient think the limits should be... which is tantamount to having no limits whatsoever.

As an analogy: I say I think individuals should be limited to having no more than 20% of their net wealth in the form of publicly traded stocks, options, or derivatives. To which you respond "No no no, you shouldn't be interfering. I agree that their should be limits, but those limits should be whatever the individual and their financial advisor feels is appropriate".

Emily favors (apparently -she won’t say clearly) that legislators place the limits, law enforcement imposes the limits and courts specify repercussions for violating the limits.

You keep mind reading poorly. And you accuse me of "not saying" only because you keep ignoring the things I actually do say.

I favor that legislators define the point in gestation at which the limitations kick in, and provide the guidelines for what those limits are. Yes, I do think they should be a matter of law, in part because it creates clear guidelines and in part because it guarantees accessibility for the overwhelming majority of situations - guarantees that currently do not exist.

I do no think law enforcement should be imposing the limits. Which should be obvious given that I've said this several times already: Guidelines established by law, doctors expected to document the conditions appropriate for the procedure *only when the gestational limit has passed*. This is not exactly onerous, this is what doctors do all the time. And having that documentation is protection for the doctor.

Yes, courts would determine repercussions for violating the law, just as they do today for any other law. And yes, doctors could face repercussions just as they already do if they violate law by doing things like prescribing opioids to known addicts or to people who are going to sell them, or when doctors behave negligently and cause harm or death to a patient.

My “self awareness” is mysteriously called into question when I point out that doing as Em suggests has been done, it doesn’t work to anyone’s benefit and leads directly to suffering and death.

No, your self awareness is called into question when you say that I'm being mean and I'm mischaracterizing you and I'm engaging in ad homs after you've spent pages and pages and pages doing that to me.

I do however question your rationality on this topic, given that the entirety of Europe and Australia, all developed nations have legal limitations on abortion, and have for decades. And most of those limitations are far stricter than what I've proposed. Your view is an outlier, and a rather extreme one at that.

When pressed on that, Em claims I am demanding “all the answers” as if it’s too big a problem to address even in hypotheticals.
My “self awareness” is at fault for providing data to support my assertions and asking that she do the same - or at least make a token effort to do so.

You provided data that is not applicable to what I propose. You provide data about women dying under complete abortion bans. I have provided you data, which you have repeatedly ignored and pretended didn't exist.

 

[Emily Lake]

give me one single scenario in which you personally believe that a reasonable doctor would be expected to refuse to perform an abortion

1) late in the term when there is no reason for an abortion.
2) any time an abortion is unnecessary and not desired by the pregnant person
3) when the woman is already in labor and delivery poses no unreasonable risk IN THE DOCTOR’S OPINION.

We agree on item 1. Now, given that we agree on item 1... why do you oppose actually codifying item 1?

Items 2 and 3 are irrelevant, I think anyone who isn't a psychopath would view those as murder.

 

[Emily Lake]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

IMO, I can only speculate about what I would do as a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term or what I would do as a physician who was asked to perform an abortion under ( insert circumstance).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

But both the woman and the doctor have agreed it's reasonable - therefore you also agree it's reasonable. That's what you've said, that's the position you've taken.

What part of this do you disagree with? Would you like to alter your prior statement?

I don’t believe your inference.

Seriously Emily, I don’t know why you work so hard to misrepresent what other people are saying but I’m not playing your game any more.

It's not intended to be a misrepresentation, Toni. It's the logical consequence of what you stated.

You stated that you believe what is reasonable is anything that the doctor and patient decide is reasonable. The actual logical consequence of your statement is that if the doctor and the patient agree that it is *reasonable* to abort a 35 week healthy fetus who does not present any known risks to the mother, then you agree that the abortion is reasonable.

If you do not agree that such an action would be reasonable in your eyes, then I would absolutely love for you to restate your viewpoint to be more clear.

Here's the deal: I don't think that you actually believe that would be reasonable. I believe that you personally would think it entirely unreasonable for a health mother to abort a healthy fetus at 35 weeks - and that's a very sensible and compassionate view to hold! It's a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of women across the entire planet.

Why is it so difficult for you (and others) to just give their honest opinions? None of us are lawmakers, it's not like we're going to break the world. But if we can't even get to a point where we're comfortable saying "In my opinion, I don't think that's reasonable" we can't have a meaningful discussion. At this point, I'd be overjoyed to get "I personally don't think that particular scenario would be reasonable, but there might be additional complications I haven't thought of".

Why is it so impossible for you to realize just how arrogant and insulting it is for you to assert that you know better than I do what I really believe?

I'm not asserting what you believe, I'm asserting what you literally said, and what the logical consequences of that are.

Do you not see how remarkably well this coin dies with your belief that you know what the ‘right’ course of action is for every woman who is 35 weeks pregnant?

While I may know what I would do if I were 35 weeks pregnant and felt I could no longer continue the pregnancy, I’m not in that situation and I have enough humility to realize that circumstances I might not imagine could exist that would make termination a reasonable choice for some women.

I also recognize and trust that there are safeguards in place that would make such an abortion vanishingly rare. Doctors also have personal and professional ethics and are further guided by their hospital and the AMA, A circumstance that would motivate a physician to perform an abortion must be indeed overwhelming.

You trust that safeguards are in place... but that's unsubstantiated belief, Toni. Those safeguards do not exist absent law. I literally showed you a facility that will do abortions for any reason up to 35 weeks 6 days of gestation, in a state where there are literally no limitations in place at all. There are no safeguards.

You believe there should be some safeguards, that there they ought to exist. So do I. The only difference here is that I understand that the safeguards do not currently exist. I'm not willing to just take it on faith that everyone will just do the right thing, simply because I can't imagine anyone not doing the right thing.

 

[Toni]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

IMO, I can only speculate about what I would do as a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term or what I would do as a physician who was asked to perform an abortion under ( insert circumstance).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

But both the woman and the doctor have agreed it's reasonable - therefore you also agree it's reasonable. That's what you've said, that's the position you've taken.

What part of this do you disagree with? Would you like to alter your prior statement?

I don’t believe your inference.

Seriously Emily, I don’t know why you work so hard to misrepresent what other people are saying but I’m not playing your game any more.

It's not intended to be a misrepresentation, Toni. It's the logical consequence of what you stated.

You stated that you believe what is reasonable is anything that the doctor and patient decide is reasonable. The actual logical consequence of your statement is that if the doctor and the patient agree that it is *reasonable* to abort a 35 week healthy fetus who does not present any known risks to the mother, then you agree that the abortion is reasonable.

If you do not agree that such an action would be reasonable in your eyes, then I would absolutely love for you to restate your viewpoint to be more clear.

Here's the deal: I don't think that you actually believe that would be reasonable. I believe that you personally would think it entirely unreasonable for a health mother to abort a healthy fetus at 35 weeks - and that's a very sensible and compassionate view to hold! It's a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of women across the entire planet.

Why is it so difficult for you (and others) to just give their honest opinions? None of us are lawmakers, it's not like we're going to break the world. But if we can't even get to a point where we're comfortable saying "In my opinion, I don't think that's reasonable" we can't have a meaningful discussion. At this point, I'd be overjoyed to get "I personally don't think that particular scenario would be reasonable, but there might be additional complications I haven't thought of".

Why is it so impossible for you to realize just how arrogant and insulting it is for you to assert that you know better than I do what I really believe?

I'm not asserting what you believe, I'm asserting what you literally said, and what the logical consequences of that are.

Do you not see how remarkably well this coin dies with your belief that you know what the ‘right’ course of action is for every woman who is 35 weeks pregnant?

While I may know what I would do if I were 35 weeks pregnant and felt I could no longer continue the pregnancy, I’m not in that situation and I have enough humility to realize that circumstances I might not imagine could exist that would make termination a reasonable choice for some women.

I also recognize and trust that there are safeguards in place that would make such an abortion vanishingly rare. Doctors also have personal and professional ethics and are further guided by their hospital and the AMA, A circumstance that would motivate a physician to perform an abortion must be indeed overwhelming.

You trust that safeguards are in place... but that's unsubstantiated belief, Toni. Those safeguards do not exist absent law. I literally showed you a facility that will do abortions for any reason up to 35 weeks 6 days of gestation, in a state where there are literally no limitations in place at all. There are no safeguards.

You believe there should be some safeguards, that there they ought to exist. So do I. The only difference here is that I understand that the safeguards do not currently exist. I'm not willing to just take it on faith that everyone will just do the right thing, simply because I can't imagine anyone not doing the right thing.

Of course there are safeguards in place. They just are not what you agree with or understand and they have not been codified into law by ( mostly male) legislators who, as a group, have demonstrated such abject ignorance about a woman’s body that I sincerely hope they are all gay men and never trouble any girl or woman with their grade school level delusions about pregnancy, menstruation, labor and delivery or absolutely any issue that pertains to women or girls however peripherally.

 

[Elixir]

Of course there are safeguards in place. They just are not what you agree with or understand

Zackly. And Ems isn’t about commit to any safeguards - she just wants them to magically appear and be kind and effective at preserving the mother’s health, and most importantly, keep the fetus alive.
IOW, magic.
The infantile notion that government is the best tool for accomplishing that or ANY kind of magic, can be safely dismissed as a child’s fantasy.

… they have not been codified into law by
( mostly male) legislators who, as a group, have demonstrated such abject ignorance about a woman’s body that I sincerely hope they are all gay men and never trouble any girl or woman with their grade school level delusions about pregnancy, menstruation, labor and delivery or absolutely any issue that pertains to women or girls however peripherally.

Amen!

 

[bilby]

I want there to be a reasonable point after which abortions are *limited* - which is exactly the legal position of your own country.

The legal positions of my state (it's a state, not a Commonwealth issue, so my country doesn't have a legal position) are not reasonable at all. As recently as 2018, it was effectively illegal to have an abortion in my state.

And to answer your other question, yes, I did take (and continue to take) action to remedy this, including (but not limited to) lobbying state ministers and representatives.

That you imagine appeals to the situation in my jurisdiction might alter my opinion on the global question of what is right speaks volumes about your respect for patriotism as a motive - a respect I do not share at all.

 

[bilby]

2) I can read, you can read, everyone can read, bilby. This is what you wrote, and what I objected to:

I understand your hatred of freedom commitment to rule of law, but as I don't share your authoritarian bent, I don't agree with it at all.

Are you trying to pretend that the stikethrough portion of that was NOT intended to insult and denigrate me? That it was NOT intended to portray me as evil?

No, I am not trying to pretend that at all.

The strikethrough portion carries the exact same meaning as the following five words, just with a different spin. I suspect you are oblivious to that, so I left it in for clarity.

If the cap fits...

 

[bilby]

If you were accurately describing my position, I would not perceive you as portraying me as monstrous, nor would I be annoyed by it. It's the fact that you keep inaccurately portraying my position that is the problem.

Well, you started it. You have done almost nothing else in this thread other than inaccurately portray your opponents' positions.

 

[bilby]

Lol, now you're taking the position that "authoritarian" is just a totally neutral term and it really just means "thinks there should be laws" so nobody would ever be offended by that?

Not at all. It's not neutral, and you should be offended by it - if only it were not your actual stated position. In which case, shame would be more apt.

 

[bilby]

I gather this is why your country has no legal restrictions on abortion... oh wait...

Well, it doesn't, as a country; It's a state issue, so the restrictions vary. Which you really should have known begore trying to use it as an argument.

But even if there had been a country level rule here, what the fuck difference would it make to my position?

I don't slavishly bow down to the law here, just because it's the law, or because it's here. When I don't like the law, I lobby for change, and I try to recruit others to do the same.

Something is not made right by being done by my country, or yours, or anyone's.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson.

 

[Toni]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

IMO, I can only speculate about what I would do as a woman who did not want to carry a fetus to term or what I would do as a physician who was asked to perform an abortion under ( insert circumstance).

By your statement here...

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

But both the woman and the doctor have agreed it's reasonable - therefore you also agree it's reasonable. That's what you've said, that's the position you've taken.

What part of this do you disagree with? Would you like to alter your prior statement?

I don’t believe your inference.

Seriously Emily, I don’t know why you work so hard to misrepresent what other people are saying but I’m not playing your game any more.

It's not intended to be a misrepresentation, Toni. It's the logical consequence of what you stated.

You stated that you believe what is reasonable is anything that the doctor and patient decide is reasonable. The actual logical consequence of your statement is that if the doctor and the patient agree that it is *reasonable* to abort a 35 week healthy fetus who does not present any known risks to the mother, then you agree that the abortion is reasonable.

If you do not agree that such an action would be reasonable in your eyes, then I would absolutely love for you to restate your viewpoint to be more clear.

Here's the deal: I don't think that you actually believe that would be reasonable. I believe that you personally would think it entirely unreasonable for a health mother to abort a healthy fetus at 35 weeks - and that's a very sensible and compassionate view to hold! It's a view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of women across the entire planet.

Why is it so difficult for you (and others) to just give their honest opinions? None of us are lawmakers, it's not like we're going to break the world. But if we can't even get to a point where we're comfortable saying "In my opinion, I don't think that's reasonable" we can't have a meaningful discussion. At this point, I'd be overjoyed to get "I personally don't think that particular scenario would be reasonable, but there might be additional complications I haven't thought of".

Why is it so impossible for you to realize just how arrogant and insulting it is for you to assert that you know better than I do what I really believe?

I'm not asserting what you believe, I'm asserting what you literally said, and what the logical consequences of that are.

Do you not see how remarkably well this coin dies with your belief that you know what the ‘right’ course of action is for every woman who is 35 weeks pregnant?

While I may know what I would do if I were 35 weeks pregnant and felt I could no longer continue the pregnancy, I’m not in that situation and I have enough humility to realize that circumstances I might not imagine could exist that would make termination a reasonable choice for some women.

I also recognize and trust that there are safeguards in place that would make such an abortion vanishingly rare. Doctors also have personal and professional ethics and are further guided by their hospital and the AMA, A circumstance that would motivate a physician to perform an abortion must be indeed overwhelming.

You trust that safeguards are in place... but that's unsubstantiated belief, Toni. Those safeguards do not exist absent law. I literally showed you a facility that will do abortions for any reason up to 35 weeks 6 days of gestation, in a state where there are literally no limitations in place at all. There are no safeguards.

You believe there should be some safeguards, that there they ought to exist. So do I. The only difference here is that I understand that the safeguards do not currently exist. I'm not willing to just take it on faith that everyone will just do the right thing, simply because I can't imagine anyone not doing the right thing.

I just listed safeguards. You chose to believe they are inadequate which is your right to chose. It is also my right to believe that they are entirely adequate

You absolutely ARE asserting that I believe something that I do not by asserting that <snip> is the logical consequence. It is the logical consequence in the same sense that your assertions in this thread will lead to a society very much like the one Margaret Atwood described in The Handmaid’s Tale.

What? You don’t like that? You feel misrepresented?

I can identify.