Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

That's why I don't do that here. I "ascribe" rights to people who are unarguably people.

Well, actually you do.

You grant rights to prematurely delivered babies at say 30 weeks development. You grant rights to an adult receiving a direct blood transfusion from another human. You grant rights to a brain-dead adult in a coma being kept alive through medical intervention. At the very minimum, you grant all of those protection against being murdered.

 

[Emily Lake]

harm minimization depends on showing such laws' harm to pregnant women would exceed their benefit to fetuses

There you go, equating fetuses with women. I have already stipulated to allowing that superstition, as long as you can measure the benefit to fetuses. But no takers.

That would be because you're the one arguing harm minimization. I'm not arguing harm minimization; I'm arguing rights-based. Specifically I'm arguing that a third trimester developed fetus has the right to be protected from murder regardless of whether they're attached to an umbilical cord or not. Mom has a right to self-defense. If the fetus is abnormally developed and will not survive or thrive, then there's no obligation to try to keep it alive. But barring those, it should be protected from murder.

 

[Emily Lake]

I see nobody arguing for killing viable and healthy fetuses for no good reason. Rather, I see a lot of us who do not trust the politicians with making a medical decision about when said fetus poses a danger.

In other words... I'm not arguing for legalizing murder, I just don't trust politicians to make a decision about what constitutes murder in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's simplify this.

At what point in time does a fetus's rights impose a legal liability on the woman?

At the point in time at which it's reasonably likely (75% or so) that a fetus delivered at that stage would survive and thrive. That's the point at which the difference between a prematurely delivered baby and a baby still inside it's oven is pretty much immaterial. Hence the commonly used term "viability", and why that stage of development was chosen.

And when that point changes (as it inexorably will)?

Then we revisit the regulations at that point, if there's a strong consensus appetite to do so. Realistically, I don't think there will be, not for a long time. Technology isn't going to change the gestational development patterns of humans. We might hit a stage where a zygote could be grown outside of a womb entirely... but I give it extremely low odds that a miscarriage at that same point could be saved. There's going to be a point where if something interrupts a pregnancy and instigates labor too early, the fetus is going to die in the process, or has already died prior to that process beginning.

Either way, it's not like this is stone tablets handed down from on high. When there's a reasonable need to evaluate the regulations, we do so. Kind of like how when automobile safety changes, we revisit speed limits on interstates. And how when the value of a dollar changes, we revisit minimum wage. And when cost of living changes, we revisit social security disbursements. And when technology changes, we revisit what's considered a necessary communal service like water and sewage.

Your faith in the reasonableness of the regulatory process is rebutted by reality. What is driving this discussion is that SCOTUS's destruction of the Roe v Wade standards. Your position permits the technology driven road to a Handsmaid Tale outcome - once pregnant, one must carry to term unless there is a clear danger to the woman's health.

Frankly, I have no faith in reasonableness in social policy when it comes to this issue. There are way too many fanatics. In my view, the well-being of a full-fledged sentient human being takes precedence over that of a fetus. And, as a rule, I have much more faith in the people who literally have "skin in the game" to make the right decisions for themselves than those who don't,

 

[Emily Lake]

a divorce walks in the door and says "Hey doc, I'd like to call it quits", and the doctor says "Sure thing, let me just inject you with this"...

Where do you keep finding these corrupt doctors?

Serious question: If assisted suicide is legal, then why would you consider this doctor to be corrupt?

You miss the point. The cited example is doing it without proper understanding. You seem to be operating on a basis that there is no other control besides what the politicians make.

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that doctors have well-defined standards of practice, a playbook for how to treat everything, and very clear ethical guidelines for every situation.

They don't.

Revocation of medical licenses tends to happen because doctors break laws. Laws which are made by politicians. Services sometimes get denied because doctors disagree with the patient's desires, but more often they're denied because insurance won't pay for it without clear indication of medical necessity and appropriateness.

It makes us feel good to believe that doctors are noble beings, who make decisions solely for the good of their patients and the greater good of society. But doctors are just as human as the rest of us, and they'll exploit loopholes just as often as any other profession would.

Police are sworn to protect the public, and yet some officers abuse their positions and exploit the public. Firefighters have jobs dedicated to saving lives, and yet some firefighters are arsonists. Accountants have pretty strict professional ethics about how money is handled and recorded, and yet they still commit fraud and embezzlement. Priests are expected to care for the souls and wellbeing of their parishioners, and yet some of them diddle kids.

Doctors are supposed to cause no harm, but some of them do. They will overbill, they'll commit fraud to get paid more. They'll order unnecessary tests to get paid more. They'll prescribe drugs they know have nasty side effects and aren't appropriate for their patient because either they're getting a kick-back from the pharmaceutical company or because it's easier to just write the rx than it is to argue with their patient. Doctors prescribe treatments that are untested, or have no real support for efficacy, simply because they're the hot new thing and they've been convinced that hysterectomies will calm women down and lobotomies will cure depression.

 

[Elixir]

Newborns are 100% biologically dependent on other humans.

So are adults.
But not BIOLOGICALLY dependent.
Weak.

 

[Emily Lake]

Cue Emily disavowing any affiliation with "the right". And in fairness she'd be right IMO. She is TRYING to be moderate, while still accommodating legal protections for fetuses. It's just that ... that doesn't work. And that is what she struggles with.

Sure sure, that's totally why the vast majority of women who are registered democrats support third trimester limitations. Yep, makes perfect sense.

 

[Elixir]

Sure sure, that's totally why the vast majority of women who are registered democrats support third trimester limitations.

Not shown to be true, and 100% irrelevant if it is.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whether a fetus has a right to his or her mother's blood and food is a complicated question that depends on the details of the individual case.

There ya go. Let’s not abridge the rights of the mother due to complicated questions about another organism’s parasitism on her body. Details of the case are no business of government IMO.
Emily, whose “position” has now evolved to

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

… seems to have conceded that the path of least harm is to allow the attending physician to make the decisions for which she formerly required the oversight of an “authority”, meaning legal authority, then morphed into requiring the assent of two doctors. Now her recommendation is consilient with my own, so I see no argument;

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

Which is a duh! No doctor is going to perform anything at that level without documenting why. That's simply standard medical practice.

You're splitting disingenuous hairs, Loren.

Doctors will document procedures, because that's how they get paid. But the don't always document conditions or medical necessity. Cosmetic surgeons don't document medical indications - the reason is "the patient wants it".

At present, in states with no restrictions on abortion at all, the doctor doesn't have to write down any justification or reason for the service. They document the procedure performed, not the medical indication for the procedure.

 

[Elixir]

That would be because you're the one arguing harm minimization

That is obvious.
The “rights” argument is as fuzzy and capricious as the “viability” and “personhood” argument it falls back on.
It elevates harm and does not deliver the goods.

 

[Emily Lake]

Re-reading some of this thread, hoping not to be again accused of intellectual sloth (call me stupid instead - it’s more accurate) I came across some revelatory stuff.

The objective is to disallow late term abortions that do not have a solid medical indication for them.

Disallowance as an objective? How is that constructive? I would hope for an outcome-based objective instead of disallowance for disallowance’s sake.
(I think I already took down the “solid medical indication” bit.)

Put bluntly: The objective is to make it illegal to kill babies for convenience, even if such situations would be rare.

Making stuff illegal as an objective is downright perverse IMO. Call me crazy but I thought making things illegal NECESSARILY had objectives to diminish whatever behavior is being illegalized.
I’m SURE that’s what Emily meant, but her choice of phrasing reveals an underlying authoritarian bent.

Don't be stupid. The objective is DON'T MURDER BABIES.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody is being injured, even in an abstract way (at least not more than by a MukBang channel existing) when the fetus doesn't get born. The fetus hasn't even earned a right to be cared about by someone else other than the person pregnant with them, a thing earned by the simple act of becoming capable of being passed off to literally any other party's mercy.

Reducing the birth rate hurts corporations that now have to compete more for labor.

We have actually had red political people argue a state interest in limiting abortion for demographic reasons.

Wow, look at you being the one to point it out this time!

Yes. That is the quiet part that they never speak: that they have need to generate a wider "underclass" so as to dilute the power of labor to have their share of direction over the capital and land.

Since nobody at all in this thread holds such a view, your post is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your faith in the reasonableness of the regulatory process is rebutted by reality. What is driving this discussion is that SCOTUS's destruction of the Roe v Wade standards.

What's driving this discussion is that RvW was never actually a law in the first place. It was an interpretation, and that interpretation was subject to challenge. An actual act of legislation passed into law is much, much, much harder to challenge.

Your position permits the technology driven road to a Handsmaid Tale outcome - once pregnant, one must carry to term unless there is a clear danger to the woman's health.

Sure, sure, which is totally why all the rest of the developed world has subjugated women to breeding machines, right? Right????

Frankly, I have no faith in reasonableness in social policy when it comes to this issue. There are way too many fanatics. In my view, the well-being of a full-fledged sentient human being takes precedence over that of a fetus. And, as a rule, I have much more faith in the people who literally have "skin in the game" to make the right decisions for themselves than those who don't,

I have fairly good faith in actual laws. I have less faith in interpretations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whether a fetus has a right to his or her mother's blood and food is a complicated question that depends on the details of the individual case.

There ya go. Let’s not abridge the rights of the mother due to complicated questions about another organism’s parasitism on her body. Details of the case are no business of government IMO.
Emily, whose “position” has now evolved to

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

… seems to have conceded that the path of least harm is to allow the attending physician to make the decisions for which she formerly required the oversight of an “authority”, meaning legal authority, then morphed into requiring the assent of two doctors. Now her recommendation is consilient with my own, so I see no argument;

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

Which is a duh! No doctor is going to perform anything at that level without documenting why. That's simply standard medical practice.

You're splitting disingenuous hairs, Loren.

We really should keep things civil here. Besides, how can a hair be disingenuous? A hair hasn't done anything wrong. Yes, hair can be stubborn, but disingenuous? No.

Loren could be disingenuously splitting hairs, but Loren split hairs all the time. It's his thing (well that and hypotheticals), so there is no reason to suggest even he is being disingenuous.

At present, in states with no restrictions on abortion at all, the doctor doesn't have to write down any justification or reason for the service. They document the procedure performed, not the medical indication for the procedure.

Meanwhile women in other states can't even have the procedure performed if they desperately need it and it has been documented thoroughly. Those women >>> the women you are complaining about. I know it's Lent but do we really need the Red Herring and Chips?

 

[Elixir]

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that doctors have well-defined standards of practice, a playbook for how to treat everything, and very clear ethical guidelines for every situation.

They don't.

But Emily does? Or the State of Texas, where kids -ACTUAL PEOPLE - get sick and die from a preventable disease that was eradicated decades ago? THOSE people have VERY CLEAR “ETHICAL” GUIDELINES. Oh wait - those aren’t guidelines, they’re CRIMINAL LAWS.
But plenty ethical according to the jackass authorities who pass and enforce them.

 

[Elixir]

Re-reading some of this thread, hoping not to be again accused of intellectual sloth (call me stupid instead - it’s more accurate) I came across some revelatory stuff.

The objective is to disallow late term abortions that do not have a solid medical indication for them.

Disallowance as an objective? How is that constructive? I would hope for an outcome-based objective instead of disallowance for disallowance’s sake.
(I think I already took down the “solid medical indication” bit.)

Put bluntly: The objective is to make it illegal to kill babies for convenience, even if such situations would be rare.

Making stuff illegal as an objective is downright perverse IMO. Call me crazy but I thought making things illegal NECESSARILY had objectives to diminish whatever behavior is being illegalized.
I’m SURE that’s what Emily meant, but her choice of phrasing reveals an underlying authoritarian bent.

Don't be stupid. The objective is DON'T MURDER BABIES.

You changed your stated objective. That’s okay, I put it down to the habitually sloppy thinking that characterizes your posts on this subject. But you’re still indulging that sloppiness, and it appears intentional.
FETUSES ARE NOT “BABIES”, Emily.
That’s why they’re called fetuses.

I don’t believe you would call a baby a fetus, but you blithely do the reverse to muddy the waters.

 

[laughing dog]

Your faith in the reasonableness of the regulatory process is rebutted by reality. What is driving this discussion is that SCOTUS's destruction of the Roe v Wade standards.

What's driving this discussion is that RvW was never actually a law in the first place. It was an interpretation, and that interpretation was subject to challenge. An actual act of legislation passed into law is much, much, much harder to challenge.

No, it isn't. The effort is exactly the same. And all it takes is 5 "special" people on the Supreme Court to make someone's wish come true.

Your position permits the technology driven road to a Handsmaid Tale outcome - once pregnant, one must carry to term unless there is a clear danger to the woman's health.

Sure, sure, which is totally why all the rest of the developed world has subjugated women to breeding machines, right? Right????

Ignoring the obvious fact that technology has not reached that point which makes your remark incredibly moronic, a big chunk of the world does subjugate women to breeding machines.

Frankly, I have no faith in reasonableness in social policy when it comes to this issue. There are way too many fanatics. In my view, the well-being of a full-fledged sentient human being takes precedence over that of a fetus. And, as a rule, I have much more faith in the people who literally have "skin in the game" to make the right decisions for themselves than those who don't,

I have fairly good faith in actual laws. I have less faith in interpretations.

As you pointed out, Roe v Wade was an interpretation of law because there was no specific law. There is still no specific nationwide law. Perhaps if you contemplated why that is, you might grasp why someone might view your position unreasonably optimistic.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, the reality of your position is that you want to mandate some pregnant woman has to put her life in danger to satisfy your "religious" view about a fetus's personhood.

 

[Elixir]

your position is that you want to mandate some pregnant woman has to put her life in danger to satisfy your "religious" view about a fetus's personhood.

RED ALERT!!!!
“Religious” is a third rail here. A reasonable person would know that it in this context it refers to a belief unsupported by evidence, but choosing that word gives “believers” (including atheists) an off ramp from reasonable discussion of the question at hand.

I’d prefer to examine the utility and outcomes of the “rights-based” legal/regulatory structure favored by B#20 and Emily, vs. the “least harm” approach that I would favor.
I think the “least harm” approach not only causes outcomes of least harm, it is also the most utilitarian approach as it does not rely so much on fuzzy subjective values like “personhood” and “viability”, which lie at the core of any “rights” approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My husband was born at 34 weeks gestation. He has had a lifetime history of various respiratory illnesses, including asthma and for one entre year, repeated bouts of bronchitis and pneumonia. I seriously thought I would be left a widow with 2 children in my mid-20's. Whether or not that was connected to his premature birth, I have no way of knowing. AFAIK, no doctor ever inquired and I did not attend every medical appointment.

I understand that you care very much about babies --me, too! But I also care very much about people being able to control their own bodies and to make their own medical and reproductive choices. I may not agree with those choices but I made my own choices and have lived with them.

The impression I got from the article you linked is that premature birth is a definite risk factor but it's a general thing. As such, not relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Like my wife's Asian heritage means a higher risk of osteoporosis--screening is more important, but it has no bearing on how the doctor reacts to the results of a dexa scan.

It is very much relevant as far as what immediate health concerns there may be to look out for as well as longer term effects. My husband had a childhood history of asthma that has changed into a tendency to have more serious lower respiratory infections coming along with seasonal flu, etc. There was one truly bad year with repeated bouts of pneumonia and bronchitis, but better since.

You're missing my point.

He has a history of asthma and respiratory infections. That's an indication to the doctors to be looking for such things. A causes C. B causes C. C causes D. We have no indication of a direct link between either A or B and D. Thus the doctor considering D will look at C but not care about A vs B. C is more predictive.

No you don’t know shit about prematurity in infants or the immediate, or long term health effects.

Premature infants are at high risk of respiratory and heart issues right away. Certainly was true during the 50’s when he was born. Sometimes, issues or potential issues remain for years after the fact. In his case: respiratory issues which may be linked to prematurity. AFAIK, there is NO other family history of any respiratory issues on either side of the family going back a few generations.

You're still missing my point.

Yes, being premature is a risk for a wide range of ailments. But having a history of respiratory issues is more important than whether they were caused by being premature.

Yes, unless you want to prevent more infants and children and adults from having chronic or repeated respiratory ailments. Asthma can be deadly.

You're mixing up two issues here.

In general, yes, premature birth causes a slew of health problems.

That doesn't mean a doctor cares about that when faced with a patient that has already exhibited problems. The fact that they exhibited problems is far more relevant than whether they were at increased risk of problems.

 

[Emily Lake]

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that doctors have well-defined standards of practice, a playbook for how to treat everything, and very clear ethical guidelines for every situation.

They don't.

But Emily does? Or the State of Texas, where kids -ACTUAL PEOPLE - get sick and die from a preventable disease that was eradicated decades ago? THOSE people have VERY CLEAR “ETHICAL” GUIDELINES. Oh wait - those aren’t guidelines, they’re CRIMINAL LAWS.
But plenty ethical according to the jackass authorities who pass and enforce them.

Oh good gravy.

"Some states have really bad regulations, therefore the only possible solution is to have no regulations whatsoever!!!"

When did you become a tea partier, Elixir?