Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jarhyn]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

 

[Toni]

This "research" reminds me of study done back in the '90s. A radio show host, of a seriously feminist program, asked her audience to send her a card or letter saying whether they were happy in their marriage or not.
According to her research, 78% of American women were unhappy in their marriage. Which she proceeded to talk about extensively on her program.
Tom

I hate to tell you but I think that 78% is not far off. I think most people who are married a long time go through periods when they are not very happy. A lot of it is work/life balance. We ( in the US at least) work too much and have too little time for recreation or just being. If you have children throw in ( more) money struggles, less time, sleep deprivation. It is extremely common, almost universal that most couples go through periods when one or sometimes both members feel the other is not pulling their weight. Money stress. Time stress. Increasingly, social isolation. Then in later life, concerns about aging parents.

For women, even today most of the emotional labor falls on the women. It can be exhausting. Women are expected to maintain family relationships with both sides of the family, help children navigate friendships and school relationships with teachers, and classmates and coaches and teammates, their own changing hormonal milieu and brain chemistry, deal with monthly hormonal fluctuations of their own bodies, adhere to societal expectations of their physical appearances, be nice and be kind to everyone, love their job but not too much and to be infinitely flexible. In addition to the physical labor of running the household, their actual paid job, whatever volunteer work seems necessary and still maintain a girlish figure, perfect complexion and zero grey hairs or wrinkles. For starters. Oh, plus be sexually available and easy to please plus moderately accomplished sexually. Only for their husbands.

Not that men don’t have a lot going on as well but I’m writing about women. I don’t doubt that if a radio host asked men to redo in d to if they are happy in their marriages, a large portion would similarly write in that no, they weren’t. Depending on the day.

Marriage is hard work. If you’re with the right person and you’re a good match, it’s also a lot of fun, and truly wonderful. But there are days when most married people think about not being married anymore—in a positive light.

 

[Toni]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

I think it does for a lot of people, who see a fetus as a baby with rights actually superior to the woman carrying the fetus.

There’s a question of when a fetus becomes a baby. And why. And who decides.

Which is the entire premise of tighter regulation on third trimester abortions. Plus some small —very small—concern for the health of the mother.

My position is that the mother and her physician decide. The physician is guided by and bound by medical ethics and best practices established by the hospital or clinic and appropriate professional governing bodies.

 

[laughing dog]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

“Viability” depends on a multitude of factors which makes it a shaky concept on which to base law, IMO.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

Whether you agree or not isn't relevant to the question of what makes Emily Lake think it is relevant.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're right. It isn't a novel concept. People here have been saying that over and over again.

Where I think the argument is rooted is in who gets to decide what's reasonable, what's necessary, and whether this is a matter for a pregnant woman and her doctor to decide.

Your arguments indicate you think the woman and her doctor shouldn't have the final say, that there should be laws they cannot transgress. Others obviously think they should, that the laws should never disallow medical procedures that a pregnant woman and her doctors think is needed. I think the politicians and preachers who want to criminalize abortions should become better educated about women's health because some of those folks are so ignorant they don't have a clue just how clueless they are. If they weren't so ignorant they wouldn't write terrible laws just like the one that prevented doctors in Ireland from providing the medical care Savita Halappanavar needed

Look, I have too much going on to play word games. I’m tired, I’m grieving, and I simply don’t have the patience for bullshit.

You keep substituting things that nobody in this thread is talking about, and for which there is absolutely no confusion at all. From context, it’s abundantly clear we’re talking about voluntary abortion - not spontaneous abortion which is commonly referred to as miscarriage, nor doctor assisted early termination of pregnancy with a live birth which is commonly referred to as induced delivery. You know that’s not what anyone is talking about. So why try to introduce obfuscatory language? It’s disingenuous attempts to hijack and distract from the actual topic. Thus, a red herring.

You (and others) also keep mischaracterizing the debate and focusing on cases where there’s a clear medical need for abortion, either to save the mother from injury or death, or because the fetus is deformed or otherwise unable to thrive. You, and others, keep pretending like I oppose such needed procedures, despite me having been exceedingly and repeatedly clear about it.

I’m not going to engage in a stupid linguistic joust where the objective seems to be the intentional complication and obfuscation of the topic, as if that would somehow result in a ‘win’ for you. It’s a waste of everyone’s time and an insult to all of our intelligence.

So how about we stick with the actual crux of the issue, and address it with a modicum of integrity?

Do you personally think that it should be legal and allowable for a healthy woman with no identifiable medical risk to voluntarily abort and kill her perfectly healthy fetus, when that fetus has reached a stage where it is viable outside the womb?

Does there exist a late gestational situation for which you would view abortion as immoral, and equivalent to the intentional murder of a human?

 

[Emily Lake]

She might have been reckless or she might not

"Recklessness" needs an actual victim.

There is none here.

She's just shitting out propaganda on the floor and hoping nobody notices.

It's only "reckless" when the ability to mitigate the issues is lacking, and the recklessness here accords to those who pull those means away: Emily is more reckless than the "slattern" she considers reckless for getting pregnant.

But if this is just you saying you would be opposed to a doctor performing an abortion 3 days before the due date without a damn good reason, then everyone who has posted in this thread agrees with you

I don't: I recognize that nobody is going to do that procedure, perhaps because few people recognize the utility of automatic selection pressures against any proliferation of psychopathy.

No amount of "think of the children" or "slatterns need consequences" will convince me otherwise.

Someone would need to present a VERY good reason why THAT child is the child that should be invested in with the ridiculously high amount of resources children need.

We have spent all this time arguing, and we have yet to see actual arguments that extend beyond demands people be "normal".

And no Emily you didn't need to say the word "slattern" or "slut" to have successfully called someone that. All you have to do is charge a statement up with words like "irresponsible", and point that irresponsibility at a sex act: in doing so you imply that such people are "loose".

In fact, going through those lengths to imply but not outright say "slattern" is more a sign of dishonesty and guilt over the idea than of those who just say their mind on the subject.

Are you even aware that you’re arguing against your own imagination?

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting backtracking. You said "Cass didn’t do any reviews or focus groups."

Oh for fuck’s holy sake. You’re playing word games. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. So just stop.

Cass didn’t perform any primary research of any sort on the efficacy or safety of pubertal derailment and interventions in minors. She did do focus groups and interviews with impacted groups to gather information about what should be included in the scope of the review and to understand the ramifications. Those aren’t the same things. So either you’re misunderstanding your Yale commentary, or they have intentionally misconstrued what was done and given you false information, or you’re intentionally trying to obfuscate in order to support you belief.

I’m done playing stupid games. They make all of us worse people, and they make everyone dumber for engaging them.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think it does for a lot of people, who see a fetus as a baby with rights actually superior to the woman carrying the fetus.

This is confusing material difference with emotional difference.

I'm not asking if people feel different about it, I'm asking what the actual material difference is for the structural effects.

Forgive me because this is a very complicated idea to try to communicate, as I try to communicate it anyway:

Imagine for a moment a boundary, between the individuals who express this concern and their environment, namely the environment that contains a person terminating a pregnancy.

Imagine for a moment that you can replace these people with any other people you might imagine constructing. Yes, "constructing".

Now, if I replaced the people that get butthurt over the event of it with people who don't get butthurt, the problem goes away. Literally nothing changes except the butthurt over someone else doing something evaporates.

This indicates that the butthurt is entirely artificial, unnecessary, and should not be catered to.

Indeed, you could just as easily express that same butthurt over the earlier termination, too.

The outcome is identical, but it's rejected for some and accepted for others based on something that has no material impact on the complaining party.

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

Whether you agree or not isn't relevant to the question of what makes Emily Lake think it is relevant.

Well, if Emily Lake wants to maintain "relevance" it is up to her to produce something that makes it materially relevant other than her own "mental illness" of caring about it for no good reason.

 

[Emily Lake]

You can do studies that quantify function and ability and loss or gain of these after an illness or accident or medical treatment. You cannot do the same so easily with how it makes you feel. Or why you made the choices you made.

But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck do you mean by ‘improper abortion?’

What authority, background, credentials do you hold to term that women late term abortions obtained for medical reasons relating to the viability of the fetus as ‘ improper?’

Follow the context!

The two studies purport to show third trimester abortions without a medical reason.

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I agree that the reasons are essentially the same, I’ve never suggested otherwise. The difference to me (as well as about 80% of Americans) is that in that 3rd trimester, it’s a baby. It’s an actual human life, and generally capable of living on its own outside the womb. That means that an abortion is killing another human.

If there’s a very good medical reason for it, then it’s regrettable but necessary - similar to how I view killing in self-defense (or defense of another). Unfortunate, sad, but sometimes necessary.

But lacking that very good reason… I see no ethical justification for condoning the murder of a viable pre-delivery baby, no more so than I would condone the murder of a newborn.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

Do you condone a parent killing their newborn because they’ve decided they aren’t in a position to raise the child, or have otherwise decided they don’t want to be parents?

Are you one of those people who drown newborn kittens in a sack because you don’t want to be bothered with them?

 

[Toni]

I think it does for a lot of people, who see a fetus as a baby with rights actually superior to the woman carrying the fetus.

This is confusing material difference with emotional difference.

I'm not asking if people feel different about it, I'm asking what the actual material difference is for the structural effects.

Forgive me because this is a very complicated idea to try to communicate, as I try to communicate it anyway:

Imagine for a moment a boundary, between the individuals who express this concern and their environment, namely the environment that contains a person terminating a pregnancy.

Imagine for a moment that you can replace these people with any other people you might imagine constructing. Yes, "constructing".

Now, if I replaced the people that get butthurt over the event of it with people who don't get butthurt, the problem goes away. Literally nothing changes except the butthurt over someone else doing something evaporates.

This indicates that the butthurt is entirely artificial, unnecessary, and should not be catered to.

Indeed, you could just as easily express that same butthurt over the earlier termination, too.

The outcome is identical, but it's rejected for some and accepted for others based on something that has no material impact on the complaining party.

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

Whether you agree or not isn't relevant to the question of what makes Emily Lake think it is relevant.

Well, if Emily Lake wants to maintain "relevance" it is up to her to produce something that makes it materially relevant other than her own "mental illness" of caring about it for no good reason.

That’s the thing: there is no clear cut line of demarcation. There will never be unanimous consensus. Which for me means: it has to be up to the mother and doctor .

 

[Toni]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

Do you condone a parent killing their newborn because they’ve decided they aren’t in a position to raise the child, or have otherwise decided they don’t want to be parents?

Are you one of those people who drown newborn kittens in a sack because you don’t want to be bothered with them?

At the point a baby is delivered, the mother’s life is no longer entertained with the baby’s.

The baby is an entirely separate individual person. If the baby died, the parents would almost certainly grieve, probably for the rest of their lives. If the baby died, the mother would require zero medical intervention to preserve her life, her health, her fertility.

The baby could go to different t parents with no change in status for health.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

Whether you agree or not isn't relevant to the question of what makes Emily Lake think it is relevant.

Well, if Emily Lake wants to maintain "relevance" it is up to her to produce something that makes it materially relevant other than her own "mental illness" of caring about it for no good reason.

JFC

Don't stop there. Poison the well some more.

 

[Toni]

You can do studies that quantify function and ability and loss or gain of these after an illness or accident or medical treatment. You cannot do the same so easily with how it makes you feel. Or why you made the choices you made.

But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck do you mean by ‘improper abortion?’

What authority, background, credentials do you hold to term that women late term abortions obtained for medical reasons relating to the viability of the fetus as ‘ improper?’

Follow the context!

The two studies purport to show third trimester abortions without a medical reason.

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I agree that the reasons are essentially the same, I’ve never suggested otherwise. The difference to me (as well as about 80% of Americans) is that in that 3rd trimester, it’s a baby. It’s an actual human life, and generally capable of living on its own outside the womb. That means that an abortion is killing another human.

If there’s a very good medical reason for it, then it’s regrettable but necessary - similar to how I view killing in self-defense (or defense of another). Unfortunate, sad, but sometimes necessary.

But lacking that very good reason… I see no ethical justification for condoning the murder of a viable pre-delivery baby, no more so than I would condone the murder of a newborn.

I don’t disagree but:

I think whether the reason is ‘good enough’ is up to the mother whose body bears the burden, whose life is at risk every day the pregnancy continues, along with her doctor who will be guided by their skills as a medical practitioner and by their oath and by the ethical guidelines of the medical facility and by their professional organizations.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think it does for a lot of people, who see a fetus as a baby with rights actually superior to the woman carrying the fetus.

This is confusing material difference with emotional difference.

I'm not asking if people feel different about it, I'm asking what the actual material difference is for the structural effects.

Forgive me because this is a very complicated idea to try to communicate, as I try to communicate it anyway:

Imagine for a moment a boundary, between the individuals who express this concern and their environment, namely the environment that contains a person terminating a pregnancy.

Imagine for a moment that you can replace these people with any other people you might imagine constructing. Yes, "constructing".

Now, if I replaced the people that get butthurt over the event of it with people who don't get butthurt, the problem goes away. Literally nothing changes except the butthurt over someone else doing something evaporates.

This indicates that the butthurt is entirely artificial, unnecessary, and should not be catered to.

Indeed, you could just as easily express that same butthurt over the earlier termination, too.

The outcome is identical, but it's rejected for some and accepted for others based on something that has no material impact on the complaining party.

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

Whether you agree or not isn't relevant to the question of what makes Emily Lake think it is relevant.

Well, if Emily Lake wants to maintain "relevance" it is up to her to produce something that makes it materially relevant other than her own "mental illness" of caring about it for no good reason.

That’s the thing: there is no clear cut line of demarcation. There will never be unanimous consensus. Which's for me means: it has to be up to the mother and doctor .

This seems "not-even-wrong", because I'm not asking who has a right to having their fee-fees hurt, I'm asking about people who have MORE than fee-fees hurt. I'm sorry, but this is a question that MUST have a clear and unambiguous answer.

Whose investment was taken and then thrown away here?

It's not about "consensus" but about an identifiable material reality of harm that is not "self-enforced".

We don't allow the law to stop someone from doing something merely because the fact of it being done abstractly elsewhere makes them feel bad.

If someone were to have standing sue the woman and the doctor for some civil damage, who is it and what is the standing?

If nobody has actually been injured, what is the law protecting by preventing it?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

I think it does for a lot of people, who see a fetus as a baby with rights actually superior to the woman carrying the fetus.

There’s a question of when a fetus becomes a baby. And why. And who decides.

Which is the entire premise of tighter regulation on third trimester abortions. Plus some small —very small—concern for the health of the mother.

My position is that the mother and her physician decide. The physician is guided by and bound by medical ethics and best practices established by the hospital or clinic and appropriate professional governing bodies.

I support this conceptually. The sticking point for me is that such best practices and ethical guidelines with respect to abortions do not actually exist. A reasonable person would assume they exist, and would believe such guideline should exist. But in actuality they do not.

As evidenced by the fact that at least some women do get 3rd trimester abortions without a medical need.

At the end of the day, at least some doctors and clinics hold the same view that LD has professed clearly (which I respect although I disagree), and which Elixir and Jarhyn support by default of their positions without having the spine to just outright own. They may be few, but there are abortion clinics in a few states that offer abortion services up to the week prior to expected delivery, on a completely voluntary basis.

So you’re hanging your hopes on a safeguard that doesn’t exist. I’m not willing to do that.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

“Viability” depends on a multitude of factors which makes it a shaky concept on which to base law, IMO.

I disagree. There may not be a perfect division between red and purple, or between purple and blue. But we can all agree that blue is not red, and there is some point where 95%of people will agree that the color is blue, not purple. Find the point where nearly everyone agrees that the baby is viable, add a week, and call it good. It’s a perfectly reasonable approach.

 

[Toni]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

“Viability” depends on a multitude of factors which makes it a shaky concept on which to base law, IMO.

I disagree. There may not be a perfect division between red and purple, or between purple and blue. But we can all agree that blue is not red, and there is some point where 95%of people will agree that the color is blue, not purple. Find the point where nearly everyone agrees that the baby is viable, add a week, and call it good. It’s a perfectly reasonable approach.

But it does not matter what 95% of people believe about another person’s pregnancy.

And frankly, 95% of people are abominably ignorant of basic facts about pregnancy, female ( or male) anatomy, childbirth and fetal development.

The only person’s opinion that matters is the woman’s and her doctor’s.

 

[Toni]

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.

True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

But how does "viability" change anything?

I maintain that it does not.

I think it does for a lot of people, who see a fetus as a baby with rights actually superior to the woman carrying the fetus.

There’s a question of when a fetus becomes a baby. And why. And who decides.

Which is the entire premise of tighter regulation on third trimester abortions. Plus some small —very small—concern for the health of the mother.

My position is that the mother and her physician decide. The physician is guided by and bound by medical ethics and best practices established by the hospital or clinic and appropriate professional governing bodies.

I support this conceptually. The sticking point for me is that such best practices and ethical guidelines with respect to abortions do not actually exist. A reasonable person would assume they exist, and would believe such guideline should exist. But in actuality they do not.

As evidenced by the fact that at least some women do get 3rd trimester abortions without a medical need.

At the end of the day, at least some doctors and clinics hold the same view that LD has professed clearly (which I respect although I disagree), and which Elixir and Jarhyn support by default of their positions without having the spine to just outright own. They may be few, but there are abortion clinics in a few states that offer abortion services up to the week prior to expected delivery, on a completely voluntary basis.

So you’re hanging your hopes on a safeguard that doesn’t exist. I’m not willing to do that.

No you believe that the only acceptable reason for late term abortions is medical need. But that concept is nebulous. There is no single universal criteria that applies to everyone. Some women willingly forgo necessary medical treatment so their baby can be born. Some women choose to terminate a pregnancy to receive life saving treatment. Rarely, a delivery goes so badly that only the mother or child can be saved. Sometimes both die.

These are not decisions that can be made by any other person than the woman and her doctor.