Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

 

[Toni]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

My belief is that the most ethical way to determine whether an abortion should be performed is a discussion between the woman and her doctor. She’s allowed to seek out more than one medical opinion.

Full stop.

Physicians have ethics and practice in facilities that have established guidelines Abd rules regarding patient care. I think this is sufficient brakes to ensure that an abortion in the third trimester is performed when such meets the medical and ethical criteria established by the facility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

 

[Emily Lake]

Agreed, it's just I don't see that this is relevant to the bathroom issue. It keeps being presented like all the sex problems are prevented by guarding bathrooms--yet clearly that is not reality as the problems exist anyway.

I adore how no matter what the discussion is, the only thing you'll ever talk about is bathrooms.

Sex offenders in nude spas? "But bathrooms!"
Men showing their dicks off to minors in the shower? "But bathrooms!"
Violent men incarcerated with women? "But bathrooms!"

It's as if you think that pretending nothing else exists somehow makes your case.

 

[Emily Lake]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

 

[Playball40]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

Uh, Roe v Wade ALREADY restricted abortion to the first two trimesters. There is no such thing as an "abortion" in the ninth month or "late term abortion". That's made up political BULLSHIT.

 

[Bomb#20]

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

Uh, Roe v Wade ALREADY restricted abortion to the first two trimesters. There is no such thing as an "abortion" in the ninth month or "late term abortion".

No it didn't. Roe v Wade restricted restrictions on abortion in the first two trimesters. Not the same thing. RvW left the decision of whether to allow late term abortions to the states. Some states allowed them and some didn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

Uh, Roe v Wade ALREADY restricted abortion to the first two trimesters. There is no such thing as an "abortion" in the ninth month or "late term abortion". That's made up political BULLSHIT.

No. Roe vs Wade said it was up to the state in the third trimester.

Reality is that sometimes defects are found that cause women to have an abortion. (Note that these will be listed as "elective"--anything that is scheduled is "elective".) Also, cleaning up an incomplete miscarriage gets labeled "abortion".

 

[Arctish]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

Uh, Roe v Wade ALREADY restricted abortion to the first two trimesters. There is no such thing as an "abortion" in the ninth month or "late term abortion". That's made up political BULLSHIT.

No. Roe vs Wade said it was up to the state in the third trimester.

Reality is that sometimes defects are found that cause women to have an abortion. (Note that these will be listed as "elective"--anything that is scheduled is "elective".) Also, cleaning up an incomplete miscarriage gets labeled "abortion".

Also note that these will be listed as "induced labor" or "C-section" depending on whether the delivery of the fetus was vaginal or surgical.

That stupid thought experiment about a woman with a healthy fetus in her 40th week of pregnancy getting a D&C on demand is just hyperbolic extremism that was ruled out long ago when State Medical Boards wrote the rules for standards of medical care.

 

[Emily Lake]

I was using the men’s locker room to get out of my swim suit, dry off and don street clothes. Usually takes 90-120 seconds. But about 15 seconds into it there was a violent explosion in one of the three toilet stalls. I mean, not just a super-loud prolonged fart, but what had to be a literal shitstorm. I was so grossed out it made me consider using one of the private all-gender changing rooms next time.
I was out of there in under a minute, still gagging as I hit the parking lot. I think worse things have befallen people in those locker rooms, but not MUCH worse.

Hmm, yes. I can totally see how being exposed to foul smelling excrement in a space where foul smelling excrement is intended to be excreted is totally as bad as, if not worse than, women being subjected to strange men showing off their dicks unasked for. Flashing really is less bad than farts, amirite?

 

[Emily Lake]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

Uh, Roe v Wade ALREADY restricted abortion to the first two trimesters. There is no such thing as an "abortion" in the ninth month or "late term abortion". That's made up political BULLSHIT.

Great. So what's your objection to... restricting abortion to the first two trimesters?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Very few legislators have any sort of medical background and afaik, none are practicing physicians. Medical treatments and care are best determined by the medical practitioner and the patient, without interference from legislators, judges, or insurance companies, each of whom have their own agendas which do not include the needs or best interests of the patient t.

I'd go farther and say that medical legislation should be considered the practice of medicine, a doctor licensed to practice in that state must co-author any medical legislation. Politicians can vote on it, but can't do the writing.

 

[Emily Lake]

I get what you’re saying but afaik, a woman flashing her tit —or crotch at you was unlikely to lead to actual sexual assault.

Men who flash, otoh, usually start out harmless but can and do progress to bolder actions. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to know who is harmless and who is only on step 1 of their planned assault.

It may sound ridiculous but keep in mind that throughout history right up to this minute and in the foreseeable future, women and girls, even little girls, are often blamed for tempting men and boys to sin. Abd are blamed for what they wear, what Abd how much they drink, what shoes they were wearing, being alone at night, going to a bar alone or with friends, accepting a ride from someone who assaults them and so on and so on and so on.

Women have a lot riding in not being too relaxed around the ‘wrong’ person and since perverts do not come with warning labels tattooed across their foreheads, we have to chose between making a fuss over nothing or putting ourselves or others in danger.

Either way, we will be judged harshly for it. And blamed.

You are mixing up separate categories.

Flashers are about shocking their victims. It's not a prelude to rape.

While it would be possible for a rapist to enter already naked it would only be as part of an attack. They're not going to stand around and put you on your guard. Thus a penis not moving towards you is almost certainly not intending to rape you.

No, Loren, she is NOT mixing up categories. Flashers very frequently escalate to sexual assault and attempted rape. So do voyeurs. Minor sex crimes very commonly are entry behaviors for people who go further and further. It's not like this is a newfangled theory - it's well documented and well known.

It's up there with the torture and killing of animals being a precursor for psychopathic behavior.

 

[Toni]

Sometimes, abortion is necessary or extremely desirable after the first two trimesters. A fatal fetal abnormality may not be discovered until late into the pregnancy. Death for the fetus is inevitable and likely painful. Continuing the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother’s health.

Thus the ever present and common allowance for risk to the mother and severe abnormality. Which I've covered repeatedly. And which was part of the standard under RvW.

Yes, this is rare but not so rare as we might wish it to be. Third trimester abortions are also rare, but not so rare as we might wish.

It is absolutely not the job of you or me or any legislator or judge to decide the amount of danger or deleterious health effects are sufficient t to allow a girl or woman to choose abortion.

But it's reasonable to expect that some danger our deleterious health effect should be present, don't you agree? Do you think it's unreasonable to think that there should be some actual medical reason that late in the game?

I think that neither you nor I nor any legislator is qualified in any way to decide what level of risk or harm a woman or girl must suffer in order to be thought capable of making a decision about her own body?

You or I might have some hypothetical situation under which we would or would not terminate a pregnancy.

And that is as far as you or I have a right to determine: what we decide under what circumstances. We would carry or terminate a pregnancy. And then, any medical practitioner would be bound by medical ethics and best practices to address our needs and wishes.

No one else has a legitimate role.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sometimes, abortion is necessary or extremely desirable after the first two trimesters. A fatal fetal abnormality may not be discovered until late into the pregnancy. Death for the fetus is inevitable and likely painful. Continuing the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother’s health.

Thus the ever present and common allowance for risk to the mother and severe abnormality. Which I've covered repeatedly. And which was part of the standard under RvW.

Yes, this is rare but not so rare as we might wish it to be. Third trimester abortions are also rare, but not so rare as we might wish.

It is absolutely not the job of you or me or any legislator or judge to decide the amount of danger or deleterious health effects are sufficient t to allow a girl or woman to choose abortion.

But it's reasonable to expect that some danger our deleterious health effect should be present, don't you agree? Do you think it's unreasonable to think that there should be some actual medical reason that late in the game?

I think that neither you nor I nor any legislator is qualified in any way to decide what level of risk or harm a woman or girl must suffer in order to be thought capable of making a decision about her own body?

I'm just curious about if we (men) are allowed to intervene in just this single medical case, why aren't men allowed to intervene in other things, like breast augmentation. Why are we only allowed to intervene and prevent access to health care for one woman's procedure? Seems kind of strict if you ask me. If we can intervene in one, then let us intervene in more! We have ideas you see.

Doctor: Emily, now that we've discussed this fully.... before we go anything further, I wanted to bring this random guy to provide us his opinion on your treatment options.
Random Guy: *whateva*
Emily Lake: Wow! I'm so glad we brought in some random person with his agenda to better inform my doctor and myself about what I should be allowed to do.
Doctor: So leeches it is!

 

[Elixir]

Doctor: So leeches it is!

Put enough Emilys in charge and there will be leeches for everyone!!

 

[Playball40]

My point is that permitted only if medically necessary is in practice ending up not protecting women. Doesn't matter where the fence is set, the same thing happens. We see a difference because states where it's still legal through the second trimester are not places where they are playing gotcha with trying to prosecute doctors.

Your point is that medical necessity requirements in the third trimester are a serious problem that we shouldn't tolerate, as evidenced by the lack of problems in states that allow unfettered abortion in the first two trimesters but not the third?

The thing is the ones who are causing problems are ones that are restricting/banning abortion. Thus the lack of restrictions is evidence they aren't in control.

Except that the states you mention, the ones where it's still legal through the second trimester... they're also restricting abortion Loren. They're restricting it to the first two trimesters. Which is what I support, and what was the accepted approach under RvW.

Uh, Roe v Wade ALREADY restricted abortion to the first two trimesters. There is no such thing as an "abortion" in the ninth month or "late term abortion". That's made up political BULLSHIT.

Great. So what's your objection to... restricting abortion to the first two trimesters?

Because I do not know the specifics of why someone needs to terminate a pregnancy. Elective abortions after 'viability' were NEVER legal under RvW. Any decision to terminate a pregnancy must be made between the patient and doctor, not the government. Any later term abortions performed are for specific medical reasons and are WANTED pregnancies. It's CRUEL to allow government intervention when it's already a devastating time for the parents. And the laws saying the fetus must be WISKED away to perform "life saving measure" on a non-viable fetus is beyond cruel. The parents are unable to say hold their child and say goodbye. This is NOT something the government should have ANY SAY IN.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm just curious about if we (men) are allowed to intervene in just this single medical case, why aren't men allowed to intervene in other things, like breast augmentation.

That's not really a very plausible claim. It looks more like a rhetorical flourish.

Why are we only allowed to intervene and prevent access to health care for one woman's procedure? Seems kind of strict if you ask me. If we can intervene in one, then let us intervene in more! We have ideas you see.

Doctor: Emily, now that we've discussed this fully.... before we go anything further, I wanted to bring this random guy to provide us his opinion on your treatment options.
Random Guy: *whateva*
Emily Lake: Wow! I'm so glad we brought in some random person with his agenda to better inform my doctor and myself about what I should be allowed to do.
Doctor: So leeches it is!

Let's try out that argument structure in a parallel situation. Suppose a neurologist assigns her patient a new form of physical therapy. The guy needs rapid acceleration, deceleration, and direction shifts to compensate for loss of dexterity and muscle mass. Among conventional exercises, what works best is a punching bag. The problem is, it just hangs there, so it's just punch after punch following the same predictable trajectories. So to mix things up better, she instead assigns him regimen of punching a capybara. It doesn't just hang there like an inert bag -- it can see his fists coming and try to twist out of the way. They do a controlled experiment and quantify systematically better improvement in his symptoms.

Well, you know what happens next. Word gets out, and some busybody makes a stink about it, and pretty soon some regulatory body prohibits capybara-punching.

And then a supporter of neurodegenerative patients wants to know why we're only allowed to intervene and prevent access to health care for one neurological procedure? Seems kind of strict if you ask him. If we can intervene in one, then let us intervene in more! He has ideas you see. He wants to bring in this random guy to provide us his opinion on your treatment options. The doctor wants to put a giant rubber band around your knees and have you hunch down and practice walking sideways -- but first she consults the random guy. The random guy sees the exercise and opines that if you're going to walk like Dr. Zoidberg you should have to make the pincher motions with your hands.

Doctor: So hand pincher motions it is!​

So, do you think the patients' rights activist has a solid knock-down argument for allowing capybara-punching?

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that neither you nor I nor any legislator is qualified in any way to decide what level of risk or harm a woman or girl must suffer in order to be thought capable of making a decision about her own body?

Let's cut to the chase, and skip the back and forth semantic battles.

Do you believe that a woman who is 7 months pregnant, with a health fetus, and with no risks to her health from the pregnancy, should be allowed by law to terminate that life inside of her with absolutely no medical need at all?

Is there any scenario during a pregnancy that you - personally - would view as murder?

 

[Emily Lake]

Sometimes, abortion is necessary or extremely desirable after the first two trimesters. A fatal fetal abnormality may not be discovered until late into the pregnancy. Death for the fetus is inevitable and likely painful. Continuing the pregnancy is dangerous for the mother’s health.

Thus the ever present and common allowance for risk to the mother and severe abnormality. Which I've covered repeatedly. And which was part of the standard under RvW.

Yes, this is rare but not so rare as we might wish it to be. Third trimester abortions are also rare, but not so rare as we might wish.

It is absolutely not the job of you or me or any legislator or judge to decide the amount of danger or deleterious health effects are sufficient t to allow a girl or woman to choose abortion.

But it's reasonable to expect that some danger our deleterious health effect should be present, don't you agree? Do you think it's unreasonable to think that there should be some actual medical reason that late in the game?

I think that neither you nor I nor any legislator is qualified in any way to decide what level of risk or harm a woman or girl must suffer in order to be thought capable of making a decision about her own body?

I'm just curious about if we (men) are allowed to intervene in just this single medical case, why aren't men allowed to intervene in other things, like breast augmentation. Why are we only allowed to intervene and prevent access to health care for one woman's procedure? Seems kind of strict if you ask me. If we can intervene in one, then let us intervene in more! We have ideas you see.

Doctor: Emily, now that we've discussed this fully.... before we go anything further, I wanted to bring this random guy to provide us his opinion on your treatment options.
Random Guy: *whateva*
Emily Lake: Wow! I'm so glad we brought in some random person with his agenda to better inform my doctor and myself about what I should be allowed to do.
Doctor: So leeches it is!

We, as a society, make laws against killing people. Is there ANY situation in which you - personally - think that abortion is tantamount to murder?

Set aside all of your "oh that never happens" and "nobody would ever do that" hypotheticals, and give my your principles.

Do you - personally - think that a woman three days away from delivery of a health infant, and with no known or identifiable risk to her life, should be legally allowed to kill the baby inside her womb?