Roe v Wade is on deck

[Playball40]

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?

So are you!!! Your "scenario" has never been a "legal" procedure.

 

[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.

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"

Tell me you know nothing about babies without saying a word about babies.

You are even less informed or correct than those who believe that life and personhood begins the second d aspen touches an egg. Your briefs are appalling in this regard.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Imagine for a moment a boundary between the individuals who think women have the right to dress however they please and show their hair in public. Now imagine you can just replace those people who get butthurt over ‘modesty requirements’ with people who don’t. Poof, the problem goes away, and literally nothing changes except the butthurt over women not following modesty requirements. That indicates that the butthurt is entirely artificial, and we shouldn’t cater to people who oppose modesty restrictions for women.

That’s your rationale. It lacks logic, reason, and theory of mind.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Is there any circumstance at all in which you personally would consider it murder? Is there any circumstance where you personally would say “no, that’s not okay”?

 

[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.

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.

“We can’t make it 100% perfect all the time, so I guess we just have to accept killing babies a few days before they’re due.”

Your reasoning here is comparable to someone arguing that because pornography can’t be perfectly defined in every single situation, then we have to allow graphic gang-bangs during Saturday’s morning cartoon time. It’s silly, and short sighted. We can make a reasonable guideline, and hold doctors accountable for acknowledging and abiding by that guideline. Allowing doctors to determine medical necessity within a reasonable guideline seems far preferable to having no guidelines at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Don’t pretend to be confused. I’m not going to play these stupid games anymore. You know what’s meant. I know you know. Everybody knows. So playing stupid word games just makes us all dumber.

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?

As I’ve already said, pick the inflection point and add a week.

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.

Killing babies late in gestation without a good medical reason is sociopathic and cruel. It’s as wrongheaded to me as condoning infanticide.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

If someone is so married to the concept that personhood is conferred via the magic of the obstetrician or midwife’s hand that they think anything still inside the womb is disposable on a whim, they’ve become lost to an ideology that lacks humanity and reason.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Yep, the horrible reasoning of recognizing that even though we can’t pinpoint the exact grain of sand that creates a heap, we are all still capable of recognizing that a heap is an actual thing.

How many trees are required to make a forest? Can you specify the exact number of trees? Does your inability to provide an explicit count result in forests not existing?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Why stop there? The decision to commit infanticide only impacts the mother too. Same goes for the two year old dependent on their parents for survival - it’s entirely the parent’s decision whether or not to kill that toddler who is too much, nobody else should have a say. That’s your reasoning, in a nutshell. You’ve chosen the magical moment when the baby is delivered, but that’s just an arbitrary choice. You have no solid rationale for that to be the magic moment.

 

[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.

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,

Let’s start with the really simple concept. Is it a baby the day before the due date, or is it a fetus that can be disposed of without care or consideration? What is your personal opinion?

 

[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.

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.

Go for it. Google it and provide the guidelines with respect to abortion. You made the claim that such guidelines exist, so it’s on you to support your assertion.

 

[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?

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

I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely. But that isn’t the question I asked, and which you’ve tap-danced around. Do you, Toni, think that the fetus in the womb the day prior to delivery is materially different from the newborn a day after delivery?

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

That’s kind of the point, whether you recognize it or not. If it can be delivered early and have a reasonable likelihood of survival, then I don’t think it should be eligible for killing without a good medical reason.

 

[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.

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.

Fine. Babies are completely dependent on others for survival, they’re parasites, so if the parents decide they don’t want it they should be allowed to kill that baby at any point, right?

 

[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.

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.

Please provide those standards of care and the guidelines that would preclude a doctor performing an abortion for no medical reason a week before due date. You made the claim, you’ve asserted that I’m wrong. Support your claim.

 

[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.

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.

lol, this is now getting really interesting. Based on the reasoning put forth in this thread, the lack of a single perfect legal standard for murder would imply that we as a society cannot create laws against murder.

Congratulations for embracing anarchy, I guess.

 

[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.

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?

If those were the only possible choices, I’d go with 1. Luckily, those aren’t the only possible choices. And up until fairly recently, we had a very reasonable, rational, workable middle ground solution that minimized the risks and was still more generous toward the mother’s wishes than almost any other country.

How about we just do that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep asserting up the “selection” process is an issue without providing links to the studies that support your contentions . There is no reason to accept your objections as having any basis in fact.

Can you not think??

Both studies have been linked in this thread.

Both studies start out describing how they found participants. Both describe fliers handed out at discharge from third trimester abortions. Both then barely mention that then other means of distribution were used. No details are provided. This is a loophole you can drive an 18-wheeler through.

 

[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.

Please provide those standards of care and the guidelines that would preclude a doctor performing an abortion for no medical reason a week before due date. You made the claim, you’ve asserted that I’m wrong. Support your claim.

You have googled. And standards of care would depend on the medical facility . And which professional organization the physician belongs to.

When I was pregnant with my youngest child, I knew that I would be having another c-section and that I wa ted a tubal ligation. It was easiest and cheapest to do it at the time of c-section. I went to the obstructs who delivered her older brother and he was no longer delivering at the hospital where her brother was delivered. Only at a Catholic hospital where I could not have my tubes tied.

I got a different obstetrician.

Hospitals do put constraints and have guidelines.

 

[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?

So are you!!! Your "scenario" has never been a "legal" procedure.

You mean other than in the states with fully legalized abortions with no restrictions and no gestational limits?

Abortion in the United States Dashboard | KFF

The Abortion in the U.S. Dashboard is an ongoing research project tracking state abortion policies and litigation following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

www.kff.org

 

[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.

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?

If those were the only possible choices, I’d go with 1. Luckily, those aren’t the only possible choices. And up until fairly recently, we had a very reasonable, rational, workable middle ground solution that minimized the risks and was still more generous toward the mother’s wishes than almost any other country.

How about we just do that?

Why do you think that is not the practice today in states without draconian abortion prohibitions?