Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

And we all said this was where it was going to go.

I call bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I don't believe for one second that "you all" were predicting this when RvW passed in 1973. Seriously, I think Elixir was maybe 7 or 8 at the time, and I'm fairly sure you weren't even fucking born yet.

I do not think he meant that we were predicting it in 1973. Rather, that we have been predicting what the end result would be of the camel's nose that we have been opposing for decades. The women being sacrificed in the red states is the entirely predictable result of tolerating a bit of nose in the tent.

 

[Elixir]

And we all said this was where it was going to go.

I call bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I don't believe for one second that "you all" were predicting this when RvW passed in 1973. Seriously, I think Elixir was maybe 7 or 8 at the time, and I'm fairly sure you weren't even fucking born yet.

I do not think he meant that we were predicting it in 1973. Rather, that we have been predicting what the end result would be of the camel's nose that we have been opposing for decades. The women being sacrificed in the red states is the entirely predictable result of tolerating a bit of nose in the tent.

Does it matter that Ems "calls"? Demonstrably, no.
Her subjective opinion, which is all she has ever offered this entire time, allows her to "call" whatever specious, or false or gospelly trooth phrases come to mind. Mistaking her "calls" for a cogent argument - that's another matter.

 

[Jarhyn]

And we all said this was where it was going to go.

I call bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I don't believe for one second that "you all" were predicting this when RvW passed in 1973. Seriously, I think Elixir was maybe 7 or 8 at the time, and I'm fairly sure you weren't even fucking born yet.

I do not think he meant that we were predicting it in 1973. Rather, that we have been predicting what the end result would be of the camel's nose that we have been opposing for decades. The women being sacrificed in the red states is the entirely predictable result of tolerating a bit of nose in the tent.

We have all said where this was going well before Emily turned back up here like a certain kind of penny.

And yes, we knew where this was all going as soon as religious assholes started their ThInK Of ThE ChiLdReN attacks on abortion rights.

Everyone saw it but the rural rubes.

In fact, we saw it every time they turned the panic crank.

We have known exactly where Nazi rhetoric ends up since the last time we had a global Nazi problem, in fact, and every time we point to it and say "that's actual Nazi shit", the reaction of "no, u", the confusion over the fact because most people are kinda dumb, and then the eventual "let's make a king" push.

Some of the oldest stories in the fucking bible of all things talk about how idiots will clamor for a king.

 

[Emily Lake]

If I understand Emily's position, she wishes to minimize "convenience abortions" (a terrible term, but shorthand for abortions that have no basis in health or health risk to anyone) in the last portion of the trimester.

Shorthand, but generally correct.

In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage.

Clarifying questions:
1) What costs (not necessarily monetary of course) are you envisioning?
2) Who do you believe is subjected to those costs?

Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

Clarifying question:
What benefit do you believe is gained that outweighs the cost, and who is gaining that benefit?

I think that the costs include the effort and time to satisfy the roadblock conditions, the additional physical and mental anguish stemming from the postponement of the eventually allowed abortion, and the physical and emotional costs to those whose abortion requests are denied.

Alright. So let's start with your errant assumptions in here.

1) The roadblock condition is for the doctor to write down the applicable conditions in their medical records. Given that this is something doctors do for every other procedure they perform, this doesn't seem like a particularly onerous roadblock. Can you explain why you think writing down the conditions in the medical record is a roadblock in the case of a late term abortion, but is NOT a roadblock for any other medical procedure?

2) What postponement do you think is occurring? Do you think that third trimester abortions should be given without an exam of the mother and fetus, but provided immediately upon request? Not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think would normally happen when a woman requests a late abortion. I would assume that a competent doctor would at least do some routine exams so they know if there's a risk involved. At that stage it's a surgical procedure, and knowing if there's a risk for the mother at the very least would inform how the doctor prepares.

3) Okay, sure, I suppose that there may be a physical and emotional cost to those healthy women with no identifiable medical risks who wish to abort a health fetus. I mean, I guess some people are going to be unhappy at being told "no, you can't kill your baby". And it's entirely true that my sympathy is limited in those situations. I'll be honest - at the stage of pregnancy under discussion, I don't draw any meaningful distinction between a baby in the womb and a premie in a bassinet. And if the mother of a prematurely delivered baby didn't want that baby, I'm happy to support them placing it for adoption, but I absolutely do not support them euthanizing and unwanted baby. If you want to view that as an emotional stance on my part, that's fine.

Look - under some of the current laws, which are extremely oppressive, I understand that some people cannot access abortions earlier in their pregnancy. But under my proposal - just as under RvW, they should be able to access abortions without any barriers. And if a woman doesn't want to have a baby, they've got half a year to make that decision and take action, during which time I fully support their decision. But if they somehow can't sort out their feelings on the issue until the last trimester, that's on them. At that point, I think it's entirely reasonable to require something more concrete than "I don't want a baby" in order to end its life.

The benefits are the elimination of the above costs which are born by the women and any medical professional, along with the benefits to society of not using resources to interfere with private medical decisions.

Killing a health baby isn't a private medical decision. I don't support it being viewed as a private medical decision to terminate a prematurely delivered baby, and I don't consider it a private medical decision to terminate an equally viable baby that is still inside the womb.

You can disagree with me all you want - that's fine. But to make any headway, you're going to have to come up with a rational argument that supports the idea that a 30 week old developing human inside the womb is materially of less value as a life than a 30 week old developing human outside the womb. Because that is the exact and only basis of my position: that the location of the developing human is irrelevant. If a 27 week old were delivered prematurely, every one of you in this thread would consider it a baby, and would oppose it being terminated because the mother didn't want it. Every one of you would consider that to be infanticide, and treated like murder. But somehow, if that exact same 27 week old was still inside the mother's womb... well, then it's just fine to kill it if mom doesn't want it. Apparently "Location, location, location" isn't just for real estate.

All of which, IMO, vastly outweigh the prevention of the tiny fraction of prevented "convenience abortions".

It's only a few murders, no big deal.

 

[Emily Lake]

And we all said this was where it was going to go.

I call bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. I don't believe for one second that "you all" were predicting this when RvW passed in 1973. Seriously, I think Elixir was maybe 7 or 8 at the time, and I'm fairly sure you weren't even fucking born yet.

I do not think he meant that we were predicting it in 1973. Rather, that we have been predicting what the end result would be of the camel's nose that we have been opposing for decades. The women being sacrificed in the red states is the entirely predictable result of tolerating a bit of nose in the tent.

I disagree. I think it's a reasonable result of RvW never having been a law. Had it actually been a law, rather than an interpretation, there would never have been a nose in the tent.

Seriously - do you think that Europe is in this same situation? Do you think there's a camel's nose in the tent in UK or Netherlands when it comes to abortion? Do you think it's an entirely predictable result that every European country, as well as AU and NZ are going to end up with complete bans and women bleeding out in the parking lot?

Please don't ignore that question. I've pointed out multiple times now that RvW, which is the framework that I want put in place as an actual law, is more lenient than the rest of the developed world. Every developed country has restrictions on later stage abortions, and they're all - every single one of them - more restrictive than what I've proposed.

 

[laughing dog]

If I understand Emily's position, she wishes to minimize "convenience abortions" (a terrible term, but shorthand for abortions that have no basis in health or health risk to anyone) in the last portion of the trimester.

Shorthand, but generally correct.

In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage.

Clarifying questions:
1) What costs (not necessarily monetary of course) are you envisioning?
2) Who do you believe is subjected to those costs?

Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

Clarifying question:
What benefit do you believe is gained that outweighs the cost, and who is gaining that benefit?

I think that the costs include the effort and time to satisfy the roadblock conditions, the additional physical and mental anguish stemming from the postponement of the eventually allowed abortion, and the physical and emotional costs to those whose abortion requests are denied.

Alright. So let's start with your errant assumptions in here.

1) The roadblock condition is for the doctor to write down the applicable conditions in their medical records. Given that this is something doctors do for every other procedure they perform, this doesn't seem like a particularly onerous roadblock. Can you explain why you think writing down the conditions in the medical record is a roadblock in the case of a late term abortion, but is NOT a roadblock for any other medical procedure?

Funny, I’ve had numerous significant medical procedures and none required a second medical procedures require a second doctor’s signature to have one.

2) What postponement do you think is occurring? Do you think that third trimester abortions should be given without an exam of the mother and fetus, but provided immediately upon request? Not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think would normally happen when a woman requests a late abortion. I would assume that a competent doctor would at least do some routine exams so they know if there's a risk involved. At that stage it's a surgical procedure, and knowing if there's a risk for the mother at the very least would inform how the doctor prepares.

The 2nd signature requirement is a postponement:

3) Okay, sure, I suppose that there may be a physical and emotional cost to those healthy women with no identifiable medical risks who wish to abort a health fetus….

Everyone is different, and people can get into all sorts if exceptional circumstances even ones that arise near the end of the term.

The benefits are the elimination of the above costs which are born by the women and any medical professional, along with the benefits to society of not using resources to interfere with private medical decisions.

Killing a health baby isn't a private medical decision. [/quote] Abortions don’t kill babies.

Because that is the exact and only basis of my position: that the location of the developing human is irrelevant.

I get that. It means overtime with medical progress , your rules make pregnant women mandatory birthers.

It's only a few murders, no big deal.

That’s right. Society makes such tradeoffs all the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028.

ROFL!!
Their welcome will not be up for re-election in 2028. I doubt there will be anything like a free or fair elections in 2026. <paranoid rant snipped>

The 2026 and 2028 elections will take place on schedule. They'll be as free as usual; 2028 will be unfair in the customary way the Electoral College gives an edge to the Repubs. Trump won't be the Repub candidate since he'll have been President twice. American democracy is a lot less fragile than the panickers think.

Summer Child!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason I’m not 100% in agreement with you, Emily, is that I am certain there are very rare events when either the mother or the fetus’ life can be saved but not both. Saving the mother would result in the death of a full term, viable fetus and could possibly construed as ‘abortion.’

I'm having a very hard time picturing a situation where a doctor has a choice. The choose only one cases come earlier where saving the woman damages or kills the fetus. But at term what scenario gives time to make a choice but can't be resolved by an emergency c-section? (Not to say that things can't go wrong. There are scenarios that lead to death, but I'm not aware of any that give the doctor a choice in the matter without a time machine.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

“Oh tnoes, I’m not allowed to kill this healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me legally, I’m going to have to resort to illegal means to muder them! And it’s all YOUR fault that I have to do illegal things to kill them, YOUR FAULT!”

Don't some women die in childbirth? Doesn't that mean that there's always a risk right up to the moment of (and in some cases a short time after) birth? So, I'm not sure what you mean by "healthy person who poses absolutely no risk to me".

Yup. Sometimes the placenta disconnects improperly--and by the time the doctor can become aware of it the die has already been cast. One in tens of thousands of deliveries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m just going to insert into this discussion an explanation of what ‘elective’ means in medical parlance. It means a procedure that is performed in non-emergency situations.

To make it very simple: If it's scheduled it's elective. Period. It says nothing about whether it's necessary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO, women who carry fetuses long term rarely, if ever, suddenly decide to abort for trivial reasons, as Emily claims. That their doctors would concur is even more unlikely. .

Rarely, yes. That's already been covered.

But you have literally been shown multiple cases where there was nothing medically wrong with either the mother or the fetus, and a doctor did concur with providing late term abortions.

I seriously don't get this insistence on ignoring actual cases in preference for feelings.

That paper feels very iffy to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

IMO, women who carry fetuses long term rarely, if ever, suddenly decide to abort for trivial reasons, as Emily claims. That their doctors would concur is even more unlikely. .

Rarely, yes. That's already been covered.

But you have literally been shown multiple cases where there was nothing medically wrong with either the mother or the fetus, and a doctor did concur with providing late term abortions.

I seriously don't get this insistence on ignoring actual cases in preference for feelings.

That paper feels very iffy to me.

Wow, though, that DARVO of hers was smooth, though.

She's using case study to override the sensibilities that should expect longitudinal and cross sectional.

Keep in mind this is the same very fine 'person' who demands double-blinding on research that doesn't even ALLOW double blinding due to its nature, and now she's abusing case study when she needs statistical weight.

She has not once presented science on these forms as anything other than a hypocrite and cherry picker, at least on any topic I've seen her in. It's actually a pretty impressive record, because at least the science illiterate would likely be at "broken clock" levels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If I may risk asking an ignorant question, what is the point of asking about personhood when that question has not been answered scientifically to any degree of certainty? Perhaps it comes down to a question of valuation, which is of course subjective. Some people value cats and dogs as persons, some don't. At some point in this thread a quote was cited that said, essentially, "A happy cat is worth more than an unhappy child" - A quote I found reprehensible quite honestly.

Do we know when a fetus becomes sentient, becomes conscious, when it starts to think, to dream, and, most importantly, when is it capable of suffering?

It's capable of suffering quite early on - fetuses experience and react to pain at around 15-ish weeks. They respond to music, to talking, etc.

For the rest... I don't know exactly. I'm not sure there's a bright line. What I do know is that a normal pregnancy is about 40 weeks, and that at 25 weeks a premie has an 80% survival rate in NICU... and a 30 week premie has a 90% survival rate without needing NICU. So pretty much, a baby born prematurely in the last trimester is very likely to survive. I have a whole lot of hesitation when it comes to terminating the life of an infant that would otherwise survive... that's where it crosses from being an abortion of a fetus to being killing a baby for me.

There are still many situations in which a termination is the most reasonable course of action, and I definitely don't want the mother to be endangered by a pregnancy. I just can't get behind having no limitations at all when it comes to a viable fetus that would survive if it were delivered prematurely at that stage.

Once again, repeating the deceptions of the pro-life crowd.

Reflexes happen at a lower level than consciousness. You can have reflexes without a functioning higher brain.

As for that 25 week preemie--the odds they end up damaged is high. And what's your support for 30 weeks not needing the NICU?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Euthanizing a terminally ill patient

This is completely illegal in the US, which is pertinent since this is by far the closest analogue to a medically necessary abortion.

How are you interpreting bilby here? Because last I checked, assisted suicide is legal in several states. So are you assuming bilby means "Oh, you're terminally ill, we get to kill you now whether you want it or not"? Because I think that would be an absurd interpretation with no basis in any reasonable context, nor indicated from bilby's posting history like ever.

It's not even comparable as what the US laws do is allow the doctor to write a prescription that's lethal. The patient must actually do it entirely themselves--which can be problematic for many of the people who are in a position to want it--if you're not fast enough you pass out without getting a lethal dose.

 

[Toni]

The reason I’m not 100% in agreement with you, Emily, is that I am certain there are very rare events when either the mother or the fetus’ life can be saved but not both. Saving the mother would result in the death of a full term, viable fetus and could possibly construed as ‘abortion.’

I'm having a very hard time picturing a situation where a doctor has a choice. The choose only one cases come earlier where saving the woman damages or kills the fetus. But at term what scenario gives time to make a choice but can't be resolved by an emergency c-section? (Not to say that things can't go wrong. There are scenarios that lead to death, but I'm not aware of any that give the doctor a choice in the matter without a time machine.)

An emergency c-section can be performed—-in a hospital setting. Sometimes, without anesthesia. Yes, I wrote that because I know personally of a case when that happened. I can only imagine! Not every woman makes it to the hospital in time to deliver her baby and may deliver en route or at home or any number of places. Many times, perhaps most if the time, these deliveries progress and a healthy baby is delivered to a healthy woman.

But what if things do not go well? A woman awakens to find she is in labor, is bleeding badly, perhaps because the placenta was covering the cervix or for some other reason. Both mother and fetus can easily die in this scenario, even in a hospital! Or the baby is breach, and the placenta tears. Or there is an automobile accident and the mother is seriously injured and goes into premature labor, meaning the baby is not in the right position to be easily born. I’m not an ob but I have known a lot of women who delivered babies, usually with happy outcomes but not always. And women who have had second semester miscarriages of pregnancies they very much wanted. Women who delivered stillborn babies or babies who died shortly after birth. One woman who decided to forego chemo to save her baby and who died after the baby was delivered prematurely. My own grandchild was delivered early due to pre-eclampsia which recurred the day after they came home from the hospital /-thank heavens for visiting nurses!

I was very lucky; I had healthy pregnancies and healthy babies. My sister lost her son when she was 4.5 months pregnant. No problems in the pregnancy right up to when she miscarried. A friend endured at least 3 miscarriages.

Bad stuff happens. People die or have serious, even permanent t injuries as a result of pregnancy or labor and delivery-or from post partum complications.

Legislators lack the knowledge, training and expertise to write decent legislation regulating abortion—or hear surgery or treatment for prostate cancer or any type of cancer or hypertension or brain aneurysms or any and every single medical condition that might occur.

They have ZERO business attempting to legislate or regulate how anyone deals with their pregnancy.

Think of it this way: We all know that insurance companies often employ retired doctors with no expertise in the particular field of medicine they are reviewing claims for, including recently an attempt by an insurance carrier to determine the length of time a patient might receive anesthesia! This is a bad bad bad bad ‘policy.’ It’s designed only to save insurance companies money, not to e sure good patient care.

And abortion laws are written to earn certain legislators some votes and perhaps a seat in heaven. They have nothing to do with ensuring good care for pregnant people or fetuses. It’s about letting some people feel
They are ‘saving babies’ without actually doing a damn thing like ensuring accessibility to good nutrition, good prenatal care, safe housing, job security, good post natal care for mother and baby, providing parental education and support where needed or the millions of things a new mother and baby need in order to thrive.

Or even access to safe and effective birth control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it's just a requirement. You can't be one unless you decide to be one.

This is retarded. I know, that's not PC, we're not supposed to use that term any more, but I seriously can't come up with a better word to express how completely devoid of reason and sense and basic cognitive ability this argument is.

So what are you, Mac or Linux?

If your definition were true... then it would mean that a person in a coma isn't a person, that their personhood is revoked. Hell, it would mean that when you're high as a kite on whatever enebriant you prefer, we can all revoke your personhood because you're cognitively unable to consent to being a person.

If they are in a permanent coma I consider their personhood gone. The hard part is determining if the coma is permanent.

 

[ZiprHead]

In my personal view, and the view of the majority of people in the US, and the majority of people on the planet, it is inappropriate to perform a late-term abortion when there's no medical need to do so.

Do you have any proof that physicians disagree with that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Follow-up question: do you consider a preemie a person?

In virtually all cases yes.

And yet those exact same organisms, you would not consider to be persons, if they were enclosed by wombs instead of by ICU incubators, because then they would qualify for the "fetus" label, correct? What is it about the geometrical positioning of a womb that forestalls a different organism's personhood? And you accuse Emily of irrationality. What is your rationale for thinking personhood depends on an organism's environment rather than on its brain? Because from out here you look like you've fallen prey to a map-vs-territory fallacy.

There have been cases of families hauling dead (as in legally declared dead due to lack of brain function) people around to doctors trying to find one who could help them. Thus life processes in a human form are not sufficient to make a person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Don’t we? And why are people who ask these questions “nutjobs”?

A weed, OK. But is there any good reason to kill a fish or a cow, which are sentient beings to whom we are distantly related? (We’re distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

I will stand by my position that militant vegans are nutjobs. Fish and cows are delicious, and we've evolved to eat them.

I find this claim fishy! (I find very few fish to be delicious.)

 

[Jarhyn]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Don’t we? And why are people who ask these questions “nutjobs”?

A weed, OK. But is there any good reason to kill a fish or a cow, which are sentient beings to whom we are distantly related? (We’re distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

I will stand by my position that militant vegans are nutjobs. Fish and cows are delicious, and we've evolved to eat them.

I find this claim fishy! (I find very few fish to be delicious.)

But Egocentrism is a hell of a drug.