Roe v Wade is on deck

[laughing dog]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Who in this scenario determines medical necessity?

Doctors, you nitwit.

I have answered this multiple times. This is not difficult. Requiring that there be a medical need doesn’t mean that anyone other than a doctor is making that determination. I swear this entire discussion is willful obtuseness. I have a hard time believing that so many people complete lack basic reasoning skills.

Use your vast reasoning abilities to explain to this sea of morons how that is different than
1) the guidelines from either the AMA or the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that are written by doctors that you reject as insufficient, and

For the gajillionth time… none of the “guidelines” include any language whatsoever that require a medical necessity in the late term. Appealing to nonexistent guidelines as a sufficient safeguard is absurd.

2) the principle that the decision should be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor that you dismiss.

If the doctor has your view and the woman has Jarhyn’s, then you both wouldn’t even blink at killing a baby the day before it’s due.

Hell, if both the doctor and mother have Jarhyn’s view, they might well decide it’s okay to kill an inconvenient toddler because they aren’t people.

The obvious point that your genius reasoning missed is that you advocate for doctors determining medical necessity while simultaneously denying their expertise in constructing guidelines or making medically necessary judgments.

 

[Arctish]

If that's all you want, then say "I want the provisions established under Roe v Wade to become Constitutional law" and stop right there. Stop posting what sounds like an argument for increased restrictions on third trimester abortions. Stop presenting that imaginary woman who wants to kill her fetus a day before her due date as though the possibility she might succeed is important to you.

But if that imaginary woman and her imperiled imaginary fetus is important then stop complaining when people focus on that part of your post.

OMFG! I have been saying that from the first interaction ages ago! Over and over and over. And for that I’ve been called names, told I want women to die, and had every possible absurdity leveled at me! Holy cow, I’ve said to you REPEATEDLY that‘s what I want and what I’m advocating for!

You keep repeating things but you aren't explaining them.

When I asked you what rules or guidelines you would suggest to keep the pregnant psychopath and the evil doctor from aborting her healthy baby a day before it's due to be born, you just got cranky and went right back to restating your opinion that aborting before the 24th week is fine but aborting after that is wrong unless it is medically necessary.

Is there a state that in your opinion does a better job of protecting fetusus than most others? Is there a nation that has a low maternal death rate and almost no late term abortions and you think we should emulate them? Is there any example of a state or a nation doing things right, or at least more right than what is currently happening in the US?

Apparently you don't trust doctors enough to allow them to decide when an abortion is warranted. If that's the case, then tell us who you think should have final say and how you propose they be positioned so that they can make that call in a timely manner.

What are your suggestions?

Elixir has repeatedly misconstrued my position as wanting a compete ban on any 3rd trimester abortion even when there’s a clear risk. Jarhyn has treated me like a monster because I believe late in the pregnancy it’s a baby, not a fetus. Even Toni has repeatedly acted as if RvW style limitations late in the game is a horrible thing and opined that politicians should have no say whatsoever.

I have provided my reasoning, my beliefs, my views over and over - and they’re views shared by over 80% of Americans, and every single fucking thing I’ve said has been picked apart and challenged to the frayed edge. You tell ME not to focus on the part that is literally the sticking point for this entire stupid thread in which nearly everyone is busy pretending they can’t tell the difference between red and blue.

I’ve been told there’s no justification for. Having legal limitations on 3rd trimester abortions, because nobody ever aborts a healthy baby that far along, and no doctor would do it anyway. So I provided evidence that while rare, they do actually happen.

Who told you that there is no justification for having legal limits on third trimester abortions? Can you quote them?

I think you tend to see things as black or white with very little allowances for shades of gray, and that's affecting how you interpret what people are saying about the inherent dangers of strict regulations, draconian laws, and absolute barriers to third trimester abortions. I see people saying there is justification for having rules and guidelines based on medical ethics and upheld by medical boards that regulate the practice of medicine in their states

BUT

those rules and regulations need to be flexible because not every medical condition is just like the textbook example, and a hard "no" on abortions increases the chances of women dying for no good reason.

I see people saying we need to rely on certified medical professionals because they are the ones with the knowledge base and skill set needed to decide when it is medically necessary to abort a fetus, and not rely on politicians because most of them know fuck-all about pregnancy and women's health.

I’ve been told no clinic would ever do it that far along unless there’s a clear medical need, so I provided links to a clinic that advertises that they will do them up to 39 weeks.

Please repost that link. I missed it earlier.

You know what? I’m just plain tired of this game. You complained about me getting into weeds, and said that me stating clearly (for the thousandth time) that I want a federal law that matches the standards of RvW. But you’ve immediately turned right around and demanded that I have to be able to specify exactly and in detail how that would be enforced. I’m not a damned lawyer or lawmaker. I don’t know, but my lack of specific knowledge outside my wheelhouse doesn’t negate it in any way, and it’s frankly stupid to make such a demand.

I did not make any such demands.

To quote myself from post#5659:

What do you think should be done, Emily?

I realize you might not have a fully formed proposal but please share what suggestions you have to improve the assessment of medical need and monitoring of abortion providers.

I am asking for your suggestions. What do you think can be done to improve the current situation in your state or mine?

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. If it's yours, then just say it.

Personally, I think the pregnant woman has final say over all medical matters affecting her until fetal viability has been reached. After that point I think doctors have a duty to preserve the life of both the pregnant woman and her fetus. However, the chances of a fetus surviving delivery at 24-28 weeks are slight so medical decisions should weigh heavily in the favor of the pregnant woman until much later in the pregnancy. IMO the guiding principle should be for doctors to save both if they can but concentrate on saving the one most likely to survive. If they err on the side of caution, it should be on the side of the one that has a proven ability to survive outside the womb.

 

[Elixir]

If they err on the side of caution, it should be on the side of the one that has a proven ability to survive outside the womb.

After my mom had my father taken off life support in 1959, she explained to me not only about that decision, but about how the primacy of the mother’s life was decided (at the time) in situations where it was clearly the mom or the baby.
“She can make more”.
I don’t think that’s a valid argument in all such cases, but odds of survival outside the womb, is.

 

[Bomb#20]

But the phrase “abortion on demand” has a life of its own; it should have been aborted in its first trimester.

So what phrase should replace it?

“Abortion”.
As opposed to “abortion upon approval” or whatever …

Well, as Toni pointed out upthread, that’s not what the word “abortion” means. Why would you want to tell people something that isn’t true? And as I pointed out upthread, using it that way is counterproductive — if using “abortion” to mean “having no laws limiting access” becomes normalized then we’ll have created an 80% consensus against abortion. Why do you think it’s a good idea to use it in place of “abortion on demand”?

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote upthread or perhaps I was imprecise about what the term abortion means from a medical standpoint—I am not going to search all of my posts in this thread but I assume I did not adequately describe or define what I meant.

Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus.

What is commonly called a miscarriage is also called a ‘natural’ or ‘spontaneous’ abortion.

Up to 25% of all pregnancies and 15-20 percent of all clinically established pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Most of these occur in the first 12 weeks after the last menstrual period.

Note that this does NOT include miscarriages/spontaneous abortions which have NOT been clinically established (ie no positive pregnancy test).

I stand by my statement unthread that we simply use the word abortion to describe the termination of a pregnancy, either spontaneous or induced. This confirms to the use of the terminology by the AMA and other medical associations.

As it is now, some women who have spontaneous abortions ( miscarriages) are being charged with homicide.

It’s odd that you’re going hyper-technical on the meaning of “abortion” while insisting on the colloquial meaning of “demand”. “Demand” technically is just the customer’s willingness to pay for the good or service at the supplier’s asking price, and that’s all abortion-on-demand refers to. Nobody thinks markets being governed by supply and demand means Musk has to build a space rocket for anyone who goes up to him and demands one. But you’re quite right that the dual meanings have led to the term being weaponized against women. That’s what makes your post so odd. You’re describing exactly the same phenomenon with the word “abortion” — the dual meanings are being used to weaponize that word against women too. The sensible thing to do is to get the medical community to stop using it as a synonym for “miscarriage”. But you’re defending that usage on a technicality.

 

[Elixir]

that’s not what the word “abortion” means

Right. That’s what I complained about.
Abortion shouldn’t have to be qualified with bullshit like “on demand” to differentiate it from illegal abortion; illegal abortion should need the qualification. “Abortion” should mean every abortion.

BTW I don’t expect my every complaint to be codified, or even to become common use. Not in the face of the conservatives’ billions pushing “abortion on demand” and similar vilifications, anyhow.

 

[Toni]

But the phrase “abortion on demand” has a life of its own; it should have been aborted in its first trimester.

So what phrase should replace it?

“Abortion”.
As opposed to “abortion upon approval” or whatever …

Well, as Toni pointed out upthread, that’s not what the word “abortion” means. Why would you want to tell people something that isn’t true? And as I pointed out upthread, using it that way is counterproductive — if using “abortion” to mean “having no laws limiting access” becomes normalized then we’ll have created an 80% consensus against abortion. Why do you think it’s a good idea to use it in place of “abortion on demand”?

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote upthread or perhaps I was imprecise about what the term abortion means from a medical standpoint—I am not going to search all of my posts in this thread but I assume I did not adequately describe or define what I meant.

Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus.

What is commonly called a miscarriage is also called a ‘natural’ or ‘spontaneous’ abortion.

Up to 25% of all pregnancies and 15-20 percent of all clinically established pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Most of these occur in the first 12 weeks after the last menstrual period.

Note that this does NOT include miscarriages/spontaneous abortions which have NOT been clinically established (ie no positive pregnancy test).

I stand by my statement unthread that we simply use the word abortion to describe the termination of a pregnancy, either spontaneous or induced. This confirms to the use of the terminology by the AMA and other medical associations.

As it is now, some women who have spontaneous abortions ( miscarriages) are being charged with homicide.

It’s odd that you’re going hyper-technical on the meaning of “abortion” while insisting on the colloquial meaning of “demand”. “Demand” technically is just the customer’s willingness to pay for the good or service at the supplier’s asking price, and that’s all abortion-on-demand refers to. Nobody thinks markets being governed by supply and demand means Musk has to build a space rocket for anyone who goes up to him and demands one. But you’re quite right that the dual meanings have led to the term being weaponized against women. That’s what makes your post so odd. You’re describing exactly the same phenomenon with the word “abortion” — the dual meanings are being used to weaponize that word against women too. The sensible thing to do is to get the medical community to stop using it as a synonym for “miscarriage”. But you’re defending that usage on a technicality.

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

 

[Toni]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

I’m objecting to the term on demand because I don’t think it’s very accurate and I do think it’s very inflammatory. Inflammatory means dangerous for women and abortion providers and clinic workers.

If the doctor thinks it’s not medically sound to perform an abortions she might well try to convince her or seek out another provider. People seeking abortions are generally pretty desperate to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[Elixir]

@Bomb#20 , do you really believe that those pushing opposition to “abortion on demand” are trying to inform people of mothers’ willingness to pay for medical services? That’s bullshit.
They are dishonestly imply the VERB:

“As a verb, demand means to ask for something urgently, forcefully, or with a claim of authority.”

They are implying - stating flat out, actually - that regardless of who the payer might be, pregnant women are demanding abortions and expect their demand to be accommodated, regardless.
3rd trimester, or even already born and breathing, sufficiently strident “demands” are acquiesced to, and babies die.
That’s the message, and I don’t believe you can credibly deny knowing that.

 

[Toni]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.