Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

IMO, those are not questions that are amenable to simple answers. At the root of my views, is that a fetus is not a baby at all, and does not merit the same protection as a baby. I think that distinction is straightforward and much easier to enforce that anything else.

I can respect this view, but I also disagree with this view.

Specifically, I don't believe that location is the determinant for what is or is not a person. I am happy to accept development stage as a reasonable determinant, but location is a problem from my perspective. That's what it ends up boiling down to for me:

• An 30 week developed human in an incubator is a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it murder
• An 30 week developed human in a womb is not a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it health care

The only difference between these cases is the location of the 30 week developed human. To me, this is as absurd as saying that a five year old in California is a person worthy of legal protection, but that a five year old in Wisconsin is not a person and doesn't merit legal protection. So far, I haven't seen any of the posters here actually try to make a case that there is a meaningful difference on the basis of location alone.

For example, whether or not I think it would be unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester health fetus that presents no know risk to the mother depends on the specific context. Which means it may or may be a violation of the hippocratic oath.

Many people in this thread have made relatively vague appeals to "circumstance" or "specific context". Perhaps some circumstance or specific context that I haven't already allowed for does exist... but so far, nobody has provided a compelling description of what such a specific context might be. I haven't asked for hard data, or statistics, or even a case study - all I've asked for is a reasonable hypothetical circumstance that you think would be reasonable and appropriate and ethical.

By all means, if you have a hypothetical that you think qualifies, share it.

Interestingly, I think repercussions for a doctor for violating the hippocratic oath should be left up to the medical profession. And I certainly do not think nor do I trust politicians to come up with standards and repercussions.

Do you think that violations that result in the death of someone fall under the auspices of legal action? Or should a physician initiated death be solely the domain of the medical profession?

 

[Emily Lake]

I've not made personal accusations against anyone. Calm down, please.

I'm not upset, there's no need for you to tell me to calm down.

That said... can you explain what your references to disingenuous, dishonest, and inconsistent argumentation were expected to be read as? Were you just expressing your general displeasure with something that hasn't happened?

 

[laughing dog]

IMO, those are not questions that are amenable to simple answers. At the root of my views, is that a fetus is not a baby at all, and does not merit the same protection as a baby. I think that distinction is straightforward and much easier to enforce that anything else.

I can respect this view, but I also disagree with this view.

Specifically, I don't believe that location is the determinant for what is or is not a person. I am happy to accept development stage as a reasonable determinant, but location is a problem from my perspective. That's what it ends up boiling down to for me:

• An 30 week developed human in an incubator is a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it murder
• An 30 week developed human in a womb is not a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it health care

The only difference between these cases is the location of the 30 week developed human. To me, this is as absurd as saying that a five year old in California is a person worthy of legal protection, but that a five year old in Wisconsin is not a person and doesn't merit legal protection. So far, I haven't seen any of the posters here actually try to make a case that there is a meaningful difference on the basis of location alone.

The issue with that is the location changes over time with improvements in technology. Suppose a fetus becomes medically viable outside the womb after 10 minutes? According to your reasoning, that makes it a person. I find that absurd.

For example, whether or not I think it would be unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester health fetus that presents no know risk to the mother depends on the specific context. Which means it may or may be a violation of the hippocratic oath.

Many people in this thread have made relatively vague appeals to "circumstance" or "specific context". Perhaps some circumstance or specific context that I haven't already allowed for does exist... but so far, nobody has provided a compelling description of what such a specific context might be. I haven't asked for hard data, or statistics, or even a case study - all I've asked for is a reasonable hypothetical circumstance that you think would be reasonable and appropriate and ethical.

By all means, if you have a hypothetical that you think qualifies, share it.

The mother realizes she cannot support the baby in the trimester. Or she finds out she is pregnant in the 3rd trimester.

Interestingly, I think repercussions for a doctor for violating the hippocratic oath should be left up to the medical profession. And I certainly do not think nor do I trust politicians to come up with standards and repercussions.

Do you think that violations that result in the death of someone fall under the auspices of legal action? Or should a physician initiated death be solely the domain of the medical profession?

Fetuses aren't persons, so they are not a "someone" which makes your question moot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By whom, by whom, I don't actually fucking care - by someone with reasonable and appropriate authority. I don't have all the answers, it's absurd of you to demand that I have all the answers. I'll speculate wildly that records would be auditable by 1) medical boards, 2) lawyers who wish to challenge, and 3) if there's reason to suspect misbehavior by government officials. I don't have a perfect answer. Who checks that everything was done properly in death with dignity cases where the doctor assists in suicide for terminally ill patients? Those have a huge ton of legal requirements wrapped around them too, and I assume the same type of organizations that oversee and audit those would have a similar role for this.

Look at what has actually happened. States demanding records in order to identify personal information. States demanding records in fishing expeditions. Reality says that the state being able to look without first making a case is a bad thing. Fool me twice, shame on me.

But how about we ask both history and our European counterparts? Nothing I've proposed is new or novel in any way. So who used to provide oversight when RvW was in place? Why wouldn't the same type of body do it going forward? Who provides oversight in UK and Netherlands? France, Germany, Sweden?

European laws are always presented as about elective abortions. I haven't seen anything addressing what they say about fetal defect abortions.

Look, I'm really trying not to get annoyed... but I'm failing. You (and others) keep acting as if even the bare minimum of basic reasonable common sense safeguards are so onerous that the only possible solution is to have absolutely no safeguards at all... and you're just going to assume that nobody would ever do any of the things that you refuse to safeguard against. And to me, that's reckless and negligent.

The minimum of basic common sense is that there must be a political commissioner on every vessel bigger than a rowboat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you think women will die? Seriously, this is where I end up thinking you guys can't be assed to actually read and use your brains.

If the law explicitly allows abortions if there's a risk to the mother's life or health... why would they die? Do you think doctors are so inept that they're incapable of making a medical decision of risk?

We think women will die because women are already dying.

The problem is that the politicians are sending two messages to the doctors:

1) Perform abortions when needed to save a woman's life.
2) There is no situation in which an abortion is needed to save a woman's life.

Faced with an impossible choice doctors are going to take the more defensible position: not performing the abortion. It's the same thing you always see when the law is contradictory: what you actually see is the most clearly defined measure, whether or not that's correct.

How many women die for lack of abortions in your sunny nation? Is this a serious problem that you're out campaigning to fix?

He's not the one with the problem. Last I had a count for how many our country has sacrificed it was at three, I know there have been more but I've lost the count (lost track of which cases were repeats vs new cases.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It is completely relevant as they are happening in places where abortion should be legal to save her life. Putting the elective cutoff at 6 seconds or 6 weeks or 6 months doesn't change that.

 

[WAB]

Fetuses aren't persons, so they are not a "someone" which makes your question moot.

Says you. To a lot of mothers and couples awaiting the birth of their child, the fetus is most definitely a person. They often begin selecting names, buy clothes, create rooms for their baby, etc. They most certainly regard their unborn child as a person. Would you go up to a woman who's nine months pregnant and tell her her child is not a person, not a someone? No, you wouldn't.

Now listen, I have already stated that I'm pro choice all the way and don't think there should be any legal restrictions at any point. But this whole not a person shtick is getting stupid. Unborn babies at a certain point are persons, even if only because the mother and father who are expecting regard the baby as a person.

 

[Emily Lake]

IMO, those are not questions that are amenable to simple answers. At the root of my views, is that a fetus is not a baby at all, and does not merit the same protection as a baby. I think that distinction is straightforward and much easier to enforce that anything else.

I can respect this view, but I also disagree with this view.

Specifically, I don't believe that location is the determinant for what is or is not a person. I am happy to accept development stage as a reasonable determinant, but location is a problem from my perspective. That's what it ends up boiling down to for me:

• An 30 week developed human in an incubator is a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it murder
• An 30 week developed human in a womb is not a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it health care

The only difference between these cases is the location of the 30 week developed human. To me, this is as absurd as saying that a five year old in California is a person worthy of legal protection, but that a five year old in Wisconsin is not a person and doesn't merit legal protection. So far, I haven't seen any of the posters here actually try to make a case that there is a meaningful difference on the basis of location alone.

The issue with that is the location changes over time with improvements in technology. Suppose a fetus becomes medically viable outside the womb after 10 minutes? According to your reasoning, that makes it a person. I find that absurd.

You find hypothetical that you invented with the intention of making it absurd to be absurd? Congratulations I suppose?

I think what you're failing to consider is that at present, a premie at 24 weeks will generally (not always) survive with medical intervention, and this is the stage that is generally considered viable. Some survive at only 22 weeks, although it's very uncommon. I'm proposing 27 weeks - three weeks later than what is usually referred to as viability. I'm already erring on the side of the mother on this, and choosing a period at which survivability of a premie is about 70% with low health impacts.

I find it absurd that you seem unwilling to consider viability a consideration at any stage. I'm comfortable acknowledging that my selected developmental stage isn't perfect, but I think it's reasonable to expect that abortions will only occur when either the fetus is very damaged and unlikely to thrive, or where there is a clear risk of serious damage or death to the mother.

Is there a point at which you think it's too late? Are you okay with 40 weeks if the mother hasn't gone into labor? What about 41 if she's late?

For example, whether or not I think it would be unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester health fetus that presents no know risk to the mother depends on the specific context. Which means it may or may be a violation of the hippocratic oath.

Many people in this thread have made relatively vague appeals to "circumstance" or "specific context". Perhaps some circumstance or specific context that I haven't already allowed for does exist... but so far, nobody has provided a compelling description of what such a specific context might be. I haven't asked for hard data, or statistics, or even a case study - all I've asked for is a reasonable hypothetical circumstance that you think would be reasonable and appropriate and ethical.

By all means, if you have a hypothetical that you think qualifies, share it.

The mother realizes she cannot support the baby in the trimester. Or she finds out she is pregnant in the 3rd trimester.

There's this thing called adoption, it's been around pretty much forever. Even animals have been known to adopt and rear someone else's offspring.

Interestingly, I think repercussions for a doctor for violating the hippocratic oath should be left up to the medical profession. And I certainly do not think nor do I trust politicians to come up with standards and repercussions.

Do you think that violations that result in the death of someone fall under the auspices of legal action? Or should a physician initiated death be solely the domain of the medical profession?

Fetuses aren't persons, so they are not a "someone" which makes your question moot.

Got it. A fetus inside the mother at 42 weeks because she hasn't started labor yet is totally not a person... but a premie delivered at 24 weeks is a person.

Location is one helluva argument. I mean, sure, I suppose other people use that argument too: A female human being in the US is a person, a female human being in Afghanistan is private property, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

European laws are always presented as about elective abortions. I haven't seen anything addressing what they say about fetal defect abortions.

You know I'm talking about elective abortions, right? Why do you think this is relevant at all?

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you think women will die? Seriously, this is where I end up thinking you guys can't be assed to actually read and use your brains.

If the law explicitly allows abortions if there's a risk to the mother's life or health... why would they die? Do you think doctors are so inept that they're incapable of making a medical decision of risk?

We think women will die because women are already dying.

Women are dying under TOTAL ABORTION BANS.

Given that I'm not proposing a total ban... why do you think this is a reasonable counter argument?

The problem is that the politicians are sending two messages to the doctors:

1) Perform abortions when needed to save a woman's life.
2) There is no situation in which an abortion is needed to save a woman's life.

Faced with an impossible choice doctors are going to take the more defensible position: not performing the abortion. It's the same thing you always see when the law is contradictory: what you actually see is the most clearly defined measure, whether or not that's correct.

How exactly do you think this is relevant to what I have proposed?

How many women die for lack of abortions in your sunny nation? Is this a serious problem that you're out campaigning to fix?

He's not the one with the problem. Last I had a count for how many our country has sacrificed it was at three, I know there have been more but I've lost the count (lost track of which cases were repeats vs new cases.)

How many of those were when RvW was in place? How many of those would have occurred when there are clear guidelines for when a third trimester abortion is legal, and when the requirement is that the doctor document the relevant medical conditions in their records?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

It is completely relevant as they are happening in places where abortion should be legal to save her life. Putting the elective cutoff at 6 seconds or 6 weeks or 6 months doesn't change that.

It's not relevant when I'm proposing that abortions are always legal to save the mother's life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

ETA: Be aware that the latest period for unrestricted abortions in Europe is 24 weeks.

And when there's one doc in the middle of nowhere (town ER, there's often only one doc) he has to let the woman die if transfer is not possible (say, blizzard, or simply too far to make it.)

 

[laughing dog]

Fetuses aren't persons, so they are not a "someone" which makes your question moot.

Says you. To a lot of mothers and couples awaiting the birth of their child, the fetus is most definitely a person. They often begin selecting names, buy clothes, create rooms for their baby, etc. They most certainly regard their unborn child as a person. Would you go up to a woman who's nine months pregnant and tell her her child is not a person, not a someone? No, you wouldn't.

You’re right because it is none if my business. We are talking about personhood for the law, so it doesn’t what they feel or think.

 

[laughing dog]

IMO, those are not questions that are amenable to simple answers. At the root of my views, is that a fetus is not a baby at all, and does not merit the same protection as a baby. I think that distinction is straightforward and much easier to enforce that anything else.

I can respect this view, but I also disagree with this view.

Specifically, I don't believe that location is the determinant for what is or is not a person. I am happy to accept development stage as a reasonable determinant, but location is a problem from my perspective. That's what it ends up boiling down to for me:

• An 30 week developed human in an incubator is a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it murder
• An 30 week developed human in a womb is not a person, and if someone caused that incompletely developed human to die, we would consider it health care

The only difference between these cases is the location of the 30 week developed human. To me, this is as absurd as saying that a five year old in California is a person worthy of legal protection, but that a five year old in Wisconsin is not a person and doesn't merit legal protection. So far, I haven't seen any of the posters here actually try to make a case that there is a meaningful difference on the basis of location alone.

The issue with that is the location changes over time with improvements in technology. Suppose a fetus becomes medically viable outside the womb after 10 minutes? According to your reasoning, that makes it a person. I find that absurd.

You find hypothetical that you invented with the intention of making it absurd to be absurd? Congratulations I suppose?

. Just following your lead and showing what the consequences are down the road with your reasoning. improvements in medical technology will move the location. Your reasoning must lead to reducing the allowable termination cutoff. Otherwise your location argument is a red herring.

Please stop telling people what they fail to consider. You are terrible at mind reading.

For example, whether or not I think it would be unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester health fetus that presents no know risk to the mother depends on the specific context. Which means it may or may be a violation of the hippocratic oath.

Many people in this thread have made relatively vague appeals to "circumstance" or "specific context". Perhaps some circumstance or specific context that I haven't already allowed for does exist... but so far, nobody has provided a compelling description of what such a specific context might be. I haven't asked for hard data, or statistics, or even a case study - all I've asked for is a reasonable hypothetical circumstance that you think would be reasonable and appropriate and ethical.

By all means, if you have a hypothetical that you think qualifies, share it.

The mother realizes she cannot support the baby in the trimester. Or she finds out she is pregnant in the 3rd trimester.

There's this thing called adoption, it's been around pretty much forever. Even animals have been known to adopt and rear someone else's offspring. [/quote] So you believe in forced carrying to term.

 

[Elixir]

Unborn babies at a certain point are persons

I disagree. The “point” at which a fetus becomes a person is FAR from certain, as illustrated vividly in this very thread.

 

[Elixir]

Just following your lead and showing what the consequences are down the road with your reasoning.

We ARE “down the road”. Even Emily allows that the current state of restricted access is killing people.
We got here by allowing the law (legislators) to intervene in some more extreme cases, and now we have 19 States with draconian abortion laws that are killing far more people than RvW did.
Ems will not acknowledge facts. She wants to do mind probing to find out what morally or ethically defective “beliefs” her opponents in the discussion might harbor. Facts don’t seem to matter, which is a familiar attribute of those who got us into the current fix.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why did you omit the text above that which referred to the physician’s best judgment?

In what way is "physician's best judgement" either materially different or more safeguarded than "physician's personal ethics"?

Because their license depends on it.

No, it doesn't.

How about you go find me the language that specifies that a physician's license depends on them employing safeguards to prevent the termination of health fetuses in healthy mothers in the later stage of gestation? Show me that language and I'll change my mind. Go on, I'll wait.

Typically these standards aren't written out so descriptively, because otherwise, the document would be larger than library of congress.

And always out of date as medical practice changes. The law says very little about how to actually doctor--and when it does it almost always is sticking itself between doctor and patient. In practice it's left up to the medical boards and they evaluate behavior relevant to accepted practices rather than against some standard written in stone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

Sounds fine to me, with a couple of caveats.
* If you clear up whose judgment of “medically indicated” is required. If it’s not an IMMEDIATELY available entity, it is guaranteed to cause problems. Like, preventable deaths.

* In a 3rd trimester emergency with a second Doc not available, are you making exceptions to that signature requirement?

I assume State Boards would be the auditors, and audits would be after the fact, not something that could delay care, right?

Even one signature in an emergency is unacceptable when dealing with emergency medicine. Saving the patient comes before documenting it. I've heard of doctors simply grabbing a scalpel and going in with no anesthesia, no notice--because they knew the patient wouldn't live long enough to take such steps. A larger artery blows, you have to stop the bleeding very quickly. Pressure from outside won't help if it's somewhere in the torso--the only possibility is getting to it in time to compress it by hand. (Note that most of the time such a diagnosis is made at autopsy.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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. In her view, such a roadblock is worth the costs imposed on those who wish to get abortions in that late stage. Others believe those costs outweigh the benefits (I am one of those people).

Yup, and the whole notion that they are happening is pretty much just a fabrication of the pro-punishment community.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is you seem to be supporting any and all roadblocks towards those medically justified third trimester abortions.

Yes, clearly, I'm supporting roadblocks for medically justified third trimester abortions by... explicitly and unambiguously allowing medically justified third trimester abortions. Makes total sense.

You're trying to fix a problem that did not exist. You are also holding an inconsistent position in that you presented a definition of medically justified far more liberal than actual medical practice, yet you want to impose restrictions. See why we don't believe you?

This is false. I present a definition a definition of medically justified that is perfectly consistent with medical practice everywhere that isn't Texas (or those other states with total bans). In every not-insane part of the US, if the mother's life or health is at risk, it is actual medical practice to terminate the fetus (caveat for cases where the mother refuses). In every not-insane part of the US, if the fetus is not viable or has a condition that will prevent it from thriving, most doctors would think it appropriate to terminate.

The restriction I propose is specifically around situations that are not medically justified.

I don't know what exactly you don't "believe", as belief should have nothing to do with this. I will say that most of the opposition is based on blatant and seemingly intentional misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.

In an earlier thread you were defining as acceptable abortions when the pregnancy couldn't continue and fetal defects were to be expected, but then dropped it when I showed that your standard unquestionably permitted the 7th month and perhaps as far as a few weeks from delivery.