Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that doctors have well-defined standards of practice,

See above.

Looks one hell of a lot better defined than "some point in the pregnancy".

I get the feeling that EL thinks the several years long training of physicians means nothing and they should just follow some cookie cutter procedure and not take specific circumstances at hand into account. They should just be technicians who follow some guideline somewhere.

Not at all. That would by why I was pointing out that there is NO COMPREHENSIVE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE. That's the entire point.

 

[Emily Lake]

No need for cops or politicians causing life-threatening delays in treatment.

For the fifty billionth time... these "life-threatening delays" are a figment of your imagination, and thus a strawman. I suppose if you really enjoy arguing with the voices in your head, go for it. Just stop implying that those voices represent my views or proposals.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

False. Demonstrably false based on my actual stated position and the policy approach that I support.

Nope. You want to deny abortions in 3rd trimester under certain conditions because you see little difference of “viability” and because of your “location” position. But giving birth ALWAYS present possible life threatening dangers. And your rationale is faith based.

Whether you like it or not, your position is fundamentally no different in basis than a Christian right to lifer. Different religion, but the same underlying disregard for the woman’s agency and well-being.

Great. I'll put you down in the camp that supports a woman's right to choose an abortion the day before her due date because she changed her mind. If you're happy to support that view, then by all means you can hold it. But don't fucking insist that I'm somehow a fundie faith-based asshat for not agreeing with you.

It is not faith based to recognize that a prematurely delivered baby of 30 weeks development is not meaningfully different from a 30 week developed baby that has managed to avoid premature delivery and is still inside mom. It's not faith based to recognize that there's an ethical and moral conflict between viewing the former as a human with a right to protection from being murdered, whereas the latter is totally not a person and can be terminated at will with no hesitation at all and no consequence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Different religion, but the same underlying disregard for the woman’s agency and well-being.

Reminds me of Aupy the “atheist Hindu”.
All the trappings except God.
No need for Xtianity to be a “right to lifer”.

The underlying issue here is this whole "we are intrinsically obligated to increase the population" mindset.

None of this "men and women are categories of baby making and not wanting baby making equipment is a DiSoRdEr" logic holds together without an intrinsic but pointedly unstated obligation to reproduce.

Fundamentally, I would call this religion in service of reproduction "natalism".

Ultimately systemic natalism is an anti-individualist stance that holds those with the least resources down in poverty.

You can even kind of spot the "opinion in the air, without reasonable foundation" in the nature of the word "disorder", hiding an invented ought as an "is".

But how else would someone make peace with the fact they didn't want to reproduce and were expected to anyway?

Are you even in contact with reality any more?

 

[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.

And they're not going to indicate that in the chart?!?!

What do you think they're going to document when the only reason is "mom wants it"? What diagnosis code goes with that?

 

[Emily Lake]

Don't be stupid. The objective is DON'T SACRIFICE WOMEN.

No women are being sacrificed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

 

[Elixir]

How about I do more work into your justifications for harm?
How about you show me how camels never get into tents?

Don't be stupid. The objective is DON'T SACRIFICE WOMEN.

No women are being sacrificed.

Right, they’re basically being murdered, without the godly benefits of sacrifice.

 

[Elixir]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

It’s a baby. Quit your deathly stupid semantic quibbles and start justifying the harms being done by abortion laws; show some benefits.

 

[ZiprHead]

Which of those ethical guidelines relates to third trimester abortions, and provides guidance on when they are ethically appropriate?

All of them. They apply to anything a physician does in their practice of medicine.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

False. Demonstrably false based on my actual stated position and the policy approach that I support.

Nope. You want to deny abortions in 3rd trimester under certain conditions because you see little difference of “viability” and because of your “location” position. But giving birth ALWAYS present possible life threatening dangers. And your rationale is faith based.

Whether you like it or not, your position is fundamentally no different in basis than a Christian right to lifer. Different religion, but the same underlying disregard for the woman’s agency and well-being.

Great. I'll put you down in the camp that supports a woman's right to choose an abortion the day before her due date because she changed her mind. If you're happy to support that view, then by all means you can hold it. But don't fucking insist that I'm somehow a fundie faith-based asshat for not agreeing with you.

I didn’t.

It is not faith based to recognize that a prematurely delivered baby of 30 weeks development is not meaningfully different from a 30 week developed baby that has managed to avoid premature delivery and is still inside mom. It's not faith based to recognize that there's an ethical and moral conflict between viewing the former as a human with a right to protection from being murdered, whereas the latter is totally not a person and can be terminated at will with no hesitation at all and no consequence.

Actually, it is. You want to impose your faith-based view that a 30 week old fetus is a baby that merits the same legal protection against murder as a baby.

 

[laughing dog]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

Once delivered, it is a baby. This is not difficult to understand.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

Once delivered, it is a baby. This is not difficult to understand.

Only by the same definitional game that makes a woman whatever the definition du jour of the day says it is.

It is actually stunningly hard. The simplest things are really the hardest to prove abstractly.

Some of the hardest reading I've done in my life has been about the foundational requirements for proving "1+1=2", and I haven't even finished the book!

It's really the "it's someone else's problem now" that really makes it a baby, to me.

The fact that "it could be but it is not, and I don't want it to be someone else's problem" that makes someone that baby's parent.

 

[laughing dog]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

Once delivered, it is a baby. This is not difficult to understand.

Only by the same definitional game that makes a woman whatever the definition du jour of the day says it is.

It is actually stunningly hard. The simplest things are really the hardest to prove abstractly.

Proofs may be difficult to understand even if their conclusions are not. One may operationally grasp that 1+1=2 without understanding the foundational requirements.

 

[Elixir]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

Once delivered, it is a baby. This is not difficult to understand.

Most everyone agrees on that.
Given the scarcity of thing we agree on, I suggest that that's when we should confer the rights, benefits and protections of “personhood”.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

Once delivered, it is a baby. This is not difficult to understand.

Only by the same definitional game that makes a woman whatever the definition du jour of the day says it is.

It is actually stunningly hard. The simplest things are really the hardest to prove abstractly.

Proofs may be difficult to understand even if their conclusions are not. One may operationally grasp that 1+1=2 without understanding the foundational requirements.

Very true, but my point was this: we need to actually step beyond that to foundations if we want to defend our "simple" views, and "here and now" is the time and place that is expected of us.

We are on page 240 of this shit show and if not now in the weeds of discussion, when?

 

[Emily Lake]

No women are being sacrificed.

Right, they’re basically being murdered, without the godly benefits of sacrifice.

In what way does MY PROPOSAL murder women?

 

[Emily Lake]

Which of those ethical guidelines relates to third trimester abortions, and provides guidance on when they are ethically appropriate?

All of them. They apply to anything a physician does in their practice of medicine.

Let's dig into this.

Principles​

I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.

Assume that a physician holds the same view as Elixir - that a 30 (or 36 or 39) week developed fetus inside the womb is not a person, and thus has no rights and no expectation of dignity... then in what way does this principle prevent or disallow a physician to abort a healthy fetus that represents no known danger to the mother?

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

If a physician believes that a 30+ week developed fetus is not a person and has no rights, does this principle apply to that physician's willingness to abort a health 30+ week developed fetus that presents no known risk to the mother? Would aborting said fetus be viewed as deficient in character, or in competence? Would it be considered engaging in fraud or deception? Would it be considered unprofessional?

III. A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.

If the law allows for abortions at any point in the pregnancy, with no restrictions of any sort, would aborting a 30+wk fetus with no known risk to the mom* demonstrate disrespect for the law? If the physician holds the same view as Elixir, that a 30+ safe fetus is not a person and hence is not their patient, then is there any expectation that they would seek changes to that law?

*I'm just going to abbreviate this as 30+ safe fetus from here on out, having to be this repetitively specific every time should be unnecessary

IV. A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.

If the physician holds the same view as Elixir, that a 30+ safe fetus is not a person and has no rights, and thus is not their patient, then would they have any reason to respect the rights of that fetus? In what way would aborting a 30+ safe fetus run afoul of this principle?

V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.

In what way does this principle apply to a physicians decision to abort a 30+ safe fetus?

VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.

In what way does this principle apply to a physician's decision to abort a 30+ safe fetus?

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.

In what way does this principle apply to a physician's decision to abort a 30+ safe fetus?

VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.

If the physician holds the same view as Elixir, that a 30+ safe fetus is not a person and has no rights, and thus is not their patient, then what responsibility do they have to the fetus? In what way would aborting a 30+ safe fetus run afoul of this principle?

IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.

In what way does this principle apply to a physician's decision to abort a 30+ safe fetus?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The ethical principles you provided are entirely silent on whether or not it's appropriate and acceptable to abort a 30+safe fetus. Doing so does not violate any of these principles unless there is a law that defines restrictions.

 

[Emily Lake]

Actually, it is. You want to impose your faith-based view that a 30 week old fetus is a baby that merits the same legal protection against murder as a baby.

As opposed to your faith based view that a 30 week developed human inside of a woman is a non-person with no rights, whereas a 30 week developed human outside of a woman is a person with rights.

I find my view, which is agnostic of the location of the developing human, to be far less faith-based than your view that location makes the difference between a person and a non-person.

 

[Emily Lake]

Only if you accept that a fetus in the third trimester is someone.

Is a 30 week delivered fetus someone?

Once delivered, it is a baby. This is not difficult to understand.

So location is what makes a human entity a person versus a nonperson?