Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

I would assume the word viability is the answer.

So 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses are not "viable"?
Or by viable do you mean it could live autonomously outside the womb?
Or maybe you mean that if all available interventions and treatments were applied, it MIGHT survive outside the womb, even though it could not survive autonomously?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

“Generally of living on its own outside the womb” is simply untrue for any baby or even 1 year olds.

Babies need care. So how much care and do the parent(s) have to be able to afford?

And given conception, gestation and birth times are estimates, how to legally deal with that uncertainty?

I get that a large portion of the population feel that a fetus becomes a baby sometime before emerging into the world. But interfering in private medical decisions because of “feelings” seems very impractical and wrong headed to me, in addition to very unfair.

 

[Elixir]

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 why I won't engage any more. If someone is so married to the concept of "unborn babies" that they exalt them above the concerns of the mother with whom the fetus enjoys the receiving end of a parasitic relationship, they have gone off the deep end, IMHO.

 

[TomC]

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.

Ya know Emily
Until recently I held an opinion nearly identical to yours. By I've changed mine.

I've come to the realization that the subject of women's reproductive care is just too complex and rife with potential disaster to let the dumbasses in government get involved. At all!
They should shut up, sit down (pray on it if they want). But using pregnant women as a weapon is more morally repugnant than the most odious abortion. And they demonstrably are, I don't think that they can stop doing it.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Wow! Talk about unreasonable reasoning.

Firstly, poll people?! Secondly, when is red turning to purple turning into blue? You described a perfect analogy as to why it is difficult to actually make this call. The difference between red (conception) and blue (9ish months) is clear, but we aren't establish blue, we are trying to establish blue... enough.

 

[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.

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 Kate 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 ts 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.

And as importantly to me, they are decisions that impact nobody beyond the woman and the doctor selling their time for money.

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 why I won't engage any more. If someone is so married to the concept of "unborn babies" that they exalt them above the concerns of the mother with whom the fetus enjoys the receiving end of a parasitic relationship, they have gone off the deep end, IMHO.

My thought is pretty much this. The pregnant person is the only vested party, and in a world without souls, investment is all that remains to create valid interest.

"There needs to be children for a future of living people" is not a valid interest, because it requires forced participation from parties that have no expectation to consent to those demands. The only party who can be expected to fulfill that interest is the person who has that interest. If you want children of some shape and format to exist, you have to make them yourself, and if someone doesn't want to do that, nobody has any right to make them who has not invested, and that investment, in any just culture, can be settled by time or money rather than particular directed service, because settling debts by particular directed service is slavery.

Slavery is an insult to all intelligence, especially slavery with regards to forced gestation.

The sperm donor doesn't get a say at all because his investment was one which is routinely thrown away. The value of one sperm among billions (or even trillions, depending on lifetime production) cannot be exalted over any of the others. A winning scratch ticket still only cost you $1 or whatever, and if it goes down a gutter or into a shredder or a bonfire, you have still only lost $1. You didn't get something you might have never gotten anyway. You'll feel cheated out of something you didn't even already have, but life isn't fair and all that and it's cash value was probably labeled as even less than $1. By my calculation, he has about 1/n investment where n is the number of sperms they made since the last load even vaguely in the direction and sperming-range of an egg. It's not a lot of share.

Then, there are other parties, oftentimes hopeful maybe-grandparents who long for grandchildren because they saw it and it's a thing they want for themselves.

These can be pesky because they can try and contribute "for the baby". These can possibly claim investment of time and effort, but most importantly, "I haven't decided whether I'm keeping it" means "I haven't consented to accepting this charity for that purpose, yet", and so the investment isn't valid until explicitly accepting it for the purposes of giving birth. It's also a debt any reasonable country will recognize is fiscally dischargeable.

I suppose the government could create an explicitly opt-in program where a person could create a financial liability, but even then I can't see how it would be acceptable to operate this as anything beyond a financial debt, and automatic benefits would act as a conscription into said debt, and I oppose conscription as a form of slavery.

People wishing well or whatever have even less grounds than the parental case.

There just isn't anyone whose investment can "stick" and doesn't which extend past "fiscal debt dischargeable in bankruptcy". Nobody has the leverage to expect her to bear that child, except the vanishingly sperm-sized one, for which the recompense for going against their wishes might be to buy and hand them a lottery ticket.

Nobody has standing to claim damage, especially not amounting to damages punishable by forced gestation, even in a last-minute abortion... Granted if abortion is exactly as risky as live birth at that stage, that lottery-ticket investment "by the man", assuming it was a consensually unprotected event in the first place, might be enough to tip that balance ever-so-slightly towards "just let it live".

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.

Wow! Talk about unreasonable reasoning.

Firstly, poll people?! Secondly, when is red turning to purple turning into blue? You described a perfect analogy as to why it is difficult to actually make this call. The difference between red (conception) and blue (9ish months) is clear, but we aren't establish blue, we are trying to establish blue... enough.

While I could have a VERY long conversation about what "blue" is, touching on physics, biology, and encoding principles (and within these things, there are a number of answers clustered around how the electromagnetic properties of certain atoms that translate the exchange of energy by photons to some other format of wave propagation in a network containing switches), there ends up being a large but finite number of answers as to what "blue" is, but that set is tightly constrained around a specific wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it is a set of exact answers. There is no "blue enough". It either activates the sensor whose molecular dye we are labeling "blue" or it doesn't, and "delivered in live birth", or thereabouts, is the threshold for this "blue".

That said, we still haven't gotten to the point where anyone has any demonstrated investment behind their goals, and souls just don't cut it, here in atheist land.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You are my least favorite poster here. Largely because you can’t seem to refrain from harassment and insult toward me. You appear to delight in maligning me, as if being a bully would magically make you a good person.

 

[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.

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.

The issue is not at what point x% of the population agrees. Frankly, given the polarization, the religious intensity, misinformation, misogyny, stupidity, and general shittiness in our population, I doubt that whatever point x% is found that it will be unworkable and unfair.

Add in determining that point is both medically measurable with the slightest error possible in every case is problematic because the practice of medicine is as much an art as it is a science, and I find your perfectly reasonably approach much more idealistically reasonable than applicable in reality,

 

[Emily Lake]

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 .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

But I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that a week prior to delivery falls clearly on the ‘baby’ side, and a reasonable majority would agree that a week after conception does not. I think it’s entirely plausible and reasonable to pick the inflection point, and maybe add a week to it. So if inflection is 28 weeks, set the voluntary limit at 29.

Don’t make a lack of perfection be an obstacle to reasonable and prudent guidelines.

 

[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?

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.

Sure.

Do you think that the day prior to delivery it’s somehow magically different?

 

[Elixir]

I find your perfectly reasonably approach much more idealistically reasonable than applicable in reality,

Every previous time I can recall, pointing that out gets the standard “you’re misrepresenting my position!” response.
Maybe your exceptionally mild wording will get it through.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Show me the guidelines about abortion that would lead a doctor who hold’s LD’s view from aborting a healthy fetus the week before it’s due, to a mother who holds Jarhyn’s view.

 

[Toni]

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.

Show me the guidelines about abortion that would lead a doctor who hold’s LD’s view from aborting a healthy fetus the week before it’s due, to a mother who holds Jarhyn’s view.

Every medical facility with a license has guidelines. So does the AMA. So does the ACOG. You have Google.

Also: you find me a case of a woman demanding an abortion a week before the due date.

I won’t be holding my breath.

 

[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.

Sure.

Do you think that the day prior to delivery it’s somehow magically different?

Do you think that abortions are performed a day before the due date?

Babies are often delivered for medical reasons weeks before their due dates. Those babies are not killed, they don’t usually die although prematurity is a known risk for death in infants

 

[Toni]

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 .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

But I think the overwhelming majority of people would agree that a week prior to delivery falls clearly on the ‘baby’ side, and a reasonable majority would agree that a week after conception does not. I think it’s entirely plausible and reasonable to pick the inflection point, and maybe add a week to it. So if inflection is 28 weeks, set the voluntary limit at 29.

Don’t make a lack of perfection be an obstacle to reasonable and prudent guidelines.

Judaism also holds the same view: that life begins with the first breath.

It’s ok that you disagree with me or LD or Jahryn or anybody and everybody in the world.

Don’t have any abortion if you believe that it is ethically or morally wrong to do so.

But don’t suppose you have a right to make that call first anyone else.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Show me the guidelines about abortion that would lead a doctor who hold’s LD’s view from aborting a healthy fetus the week before it’s due, to a mother who holds Jarhyn’s view.

Every medical facility with a license has guidelines. So does the AMA. So does the ACOG. You have Google.

Also: you find me a case of a woman demanding an abortion a week before the due date.

I won’t be holding my breath.

She claimed several times there was no standard of care for abortion providers. She was wrong then too.

 

[Toni]

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.

Show me the guidelines about abortion that would lead a doctor who hold’s LD’s view from aborting a healthy fetus the week before it’s due, to a mother who holds Jarhyn’s view.

Every medical facility with a license has guidelines. So does the AMA. So does the ACOG. You have Google.

Also: you find me a case of a woman demanding an abortion a week before the due date.

I won’t be holding my breath.

She claimed several times there was no standard of care for abortion providers. She was wrong then too.

There is no single one size fits all standard. There is also no single legal standard for murder. Or love.

 

[laughing dog]

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 .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

As opposed to the ever changing magical “viability” standard?

Suppose society according to your stated procedure agreed that
1) abortion is legal until delivery, or
2) abortion is legal only when the mother’s life is in imminent danger.

Would you be copacetic with each outcome?

 

[Playball40]

Why not just say abortion?

Because that would be an epic rhetorical own goal. If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.

But it doesn't mean that at all. Why would we want to convince everyone of something that is not and never will be true?

Assuming that women are crazy creatures with a self destructive/murderous streak who willy nilly decide to just abort a perfectly normal pregnancy 3 days before the due date----doctors and nurses and midwifes are not going to do that as discussed upthread. It's like saying that if I eat pop rocks while drinking cococola my head will explode.

“Oh doctors would never do that” isn’t as convincing as you might wish it to be. There’s a whole host of things doctors do that a reasonable person would think they shouldn’t do.

Please provide verifiable statistics of this happening.

 

[Jarhyn]

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 .

There may not be a perfect bright line with unanimity… because people like LD and Jarhyn seem to think that personhood is magically conferred by delivery.

As opposed to the ever changing magical “viability” standard?

Suppose society according to your stated procedure agreed that
1) abortion is legal until delivery, or
2) abortion is legal only when the mother’s life is in imminent danger.

Would you be copacetic with each outcome?

Emily keeps failing to remember that I don't think personhood begins at delivery.

I personally don't think it really "begins" until some time quite later, if ever, for a lot of people.

Then, I also confer the benefit of the doubt, at least in something's possible future as a person, so long as it doesn't place that path intentionally across the lives of others which also have such potential.

We can never really infer when it first comes into being or if it does for most, but we know surely that it does for at least some, and treating others badly tends to make a person who has a much harder time being good to others, and makes it more bothersome to ever achieve personhood for them.

I think personhood is the accomplishment of understanding that other people have equivalently potent justifications as oneself, and if they reject the potency of certain justifications of others, they must logically reject their own such justifications, and the general structure of how and what we justify rather than the specifics can be used to generate a general statement of what cannot be justified, namely something in the vicinity of "acting unilaterally against consent".

I'm not even a very good person, assuming I am a "person" at all, myself. How can I criticize others for missing the mark so long as they fix their mistakes and don't push others around?

But I think any such creature is properly entitled to one of "fairly painlessly rendered non-existence prior to 'introductions being made'," or "getting 'the best of introductions we can manage'."

Anything less is kind of fucked up, IMO. And we do a really bad job with most things we force to exist, but "everyone's gotta eat".