Why people are afraid of universal health care

[laughing dog]

We don't have good indications of problems with third trimester abortions. We have big problems with politicians trying to backdoor ban abortions. Thus, while in general I agree with you (but I would put the dividing line at 7 months) in practice I would prefer an absolute line that the politicians can't touch it.

I'm open to some reasonable negotiation about where to place that line. But like you, I do think there should be a line. And politicians should, in my view, have no investment in that line - it's sole purpose is to define the stage at which a fetus is considered to be a human life rather than a lump of cells. For anything before that line, the government is prohibited from interfering, and the decision is entirely up to the mother (and whoever she decides to take advice from). After that line, the government still doesn't get a say, but it does need to be medically justified.

That later period termination would be similar in concept to assisted suicide. A ban on late period terminations would make it so that any doctor and mother having that abortion would be considered to have committed murder. Similarly, if assisted suicide is banned, any doctor who helps a patient end their life is considered to have committed murder. Limitations on late gestation terminations would do nothing more than require that there's a medical justification for it - if there is no medical justification then it is tantamount to murder. Likewise, when assisted suicide is not banned, it still requires medical justification - if there's no solid medical reason for a doctor to euthanize a patient then it's just plain murder, even if the patient really wants to die.

I see these two situations as very similar.

So to the rest of the thread participants, I have two questions:

1) A healthy person with no terminal illness and no significant pain comes into a doctor's office and says "hey doc, I don't want to live anymore". The doc says "alrighty then" and pumps them full of fentanyl until they overdose. Do you consider this to be murder?

2) A healthy mother comes into the doctor with a healthy fetus at 8.5 months into a pregnancy, there's no risk to the mother's health or wellbeing, there's no deformity or health risk for the infant. Mom says "Doc, I changed my mind, I don't want to have a baby anymore". Doc says "No problemo" and aborts the infant. Do you consider this to be murder?

If you gave different answers to those two questions... what do think makes them meaningfully different?

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

 

[bilby]

So to the rest of the thread participants, I have two questions:

1) A healthy person with no terminal illness and no significant pain comes into a doctor's office and says "hey doc, I don't want to live anymore". The doc says "alrighty then" and pumps them full of fentanyl until they overdose. Do you consider this to be murder?

No.

2) A healthy mother comes into the doctor with a healthy fetus at 8.5 months into a pregnancy, there's no risk to the mother's health or wellbeing, there's no deformity or health risk for the infant. Mom says "Doc, I changed my mind, I don't want to have a baby anymore". Doc says "No problemo" and aborts the infant. Do you consider this to be murder?

Also no.

I consider both scenarios to be attempted murder - an attempt to kill discussion by the use of massively oversimplified hypotheticals.

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

You could as well argue for laws against jay-walking, by asking whether a mother should be allowed to tell her children to go and play on the freeway.









* The vast majority of doctors hold human life in higher regard than the general public at large; That's why they became doctors. The handful of homicidal doctors (whose cases are always well publicised when they come to light, because they represent such a shocking departure from the norm) don't need to wait for patients to volunteer - they kill patients because the doctor wants them to die, not because the patient or anyone else does.

 

[Elixir]

Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

QFT
Meanwhile the chorus is “but they could!”
It’s just a power play, plain and simple, because the notion that they could is just a notion. The FACT is that they DON”T.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Correct. That's like asking a surgeon to amputate your perfectly good legs.

 

[ZiprHead]

True, but padding costs is a necessity given the regulatory system. If a company couldn't pad the costs of drug A to recover the billion dollars it spent trying and failing to get drug B approved it'd go broke, unless it magically knew up front which drug was going to pan out. (That's not to say a better system isn't possible. I'm sure one is, and I hope some country comes up with it one of these years and takes over the job from us.)

So... about this...

A significant portion of the primary research into novel drugs is done by universities, and paid for by government grants. Companies will pick up rights to drugs that are promising based on that initial research. It's not uncommon for the very earliest trials to be conducted at a university, and a company only picks it up after it's passed that phase. Pharma companies aren't funding the core research; US taxpayers are.

This. ^^^

Once the basics are done, pharmaceutical companies take over to monetize the new drug or device.

That said, many pharma companies spend more on advertising and marketing than R&D.

 

[Emily Lake]

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

 

[Emily Lake]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Is it your belief that no doctor anywhere would ever provide a voluntary abortion to a woman who was 8 months pregnant?

 

[bilby]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Is it your belief that no doctor anywhere would ever provide a voluntary abortion to a woman who was 8 months pregnant?

It's a big world. Nothing's impossible.

Is it your belief that it is a situation sufficiently likely to arise as to justify specific legislation (given that all legislation has unintended consequences)?

 

[laughing dog]

The

Both are unrealistic hypotheticals. No responsible physician would say yes in either case. The 1st case is different than the 2nd because it is charitably assisted suicide of a person. In the 2nd, a fetus is not a person.

In your opinion... a 38 week old fetus is not a person so long as it's still inside a uterus? Is it a person if it's delivered prematurely at 38 weeks?

Yes to both.

 

[Elixir]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Is it your belief that no doctor anywhere would ever provide a voluntary abortion to a woman who was 8 months pregnant?

It's a big world. Nothing's impossible.

Is it your belief that it is a situation sufficiently likely to arise as to justify specific legislation (given that all legislation has unintended consequences)?

Of course rich people passing the bans could still get abortions for their mistresses and daughters any time of day or night, regardless of legalities, medical indications or term of pregnancies. And who else is affected by laws banning optional late term abortion, so why not pass them? Let’s illegalize sex with porcupines, too.

 

[Arctish]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Is it your belief that no doctor anywhere would ever provide a voluntary abortion to a woman who was 8 months pregnant?

Why would a doctor kill a normal healthy fetus at the 8th month of development rather than deliver it via a cesarean procedure? And why would a doctor do it on demand?

 

[ZiprHead]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Is it your belief that no doctor anywhere would ever provide a voluntary abortion to a woman who was 8 months pregnant?

There was one once. He went to jail for a very long time.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why would a doctor kill a normal healthy fetus at the 8th month of development rather than deliver it via a cesarean procedure? And why would a doctor do it on demand?

And then deliver it to the loudest pro lifer he or she can find along with the itemized bill. And ask that pro lifer why he or she isn't out there fighting against all the starvation, malnutrition and war that is killing children across the globe instead of pontificating from the comfort of their hypocritical, moralist, demagogic echo chamber.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

BTW, are people really afraid of UHC? I've never met anyone who is afraid of UHC. As a matter of fact the few people I know who are rabidly against UHC have been beneficiaries of government legislation that lets them off without paying their medical bills. They're not afraid of UHC judging by their actions, just acting like selfish pricks because they don't want anyone else, especially those immigrants with brown skin or someone who isn't as white as themselves, to have the same things they have. And they certainly don't want to have to pay for it.

 

[Elixir]

A healthy mother comes into the doctor with a healthy fetus at 8.5 months into a pregnancy, there's no risk to the mother's health or wellbeing, there's no deformity or health risk for the infant. Mom says "Doc, I changed my mind, I don't want to have a baby anymore". Doc says “THIS IS THE STUPIDEST FAKE SCENARIO THAT HAS EVER BEEN FOISTED ON ME. GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY OFFICE.”

FIFY

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't have good indications of problems with third trimester abortions. We have big problems with politicians trying to backdoor ban abortions. Thus, while in general I agree with you (but I would put the dividing line at 7 months) in practice I would prefer an absolute line that the politicians can't touch it.

I'm open to some reasonable negotiation about where to place that line. But like you, I do think there should be a line. And politicians should, in my view, have no investment in that line - it's sole purpose is to define the stage at which a fetus is considered to be a human life rather than a lump of cells. For anything before that line, the government is prohibited from interfering, and the decision is entirely up to the mother (and whoever she decides to take advice from). After that line, the government still doesn't get a say, but it does need to be medically justified.

That later period termination would be similar in concept to assisted suicide. A ban on late period terminations would make it so that any doctor and mother having that abortion would be considered to have committed murder. Similarly, if assisted suicide is banned, any doctor who helps a patient end their life is considered to have committed murder. Limitations on late gestation terminations would do nothing more than require that there's a medical justification for it - if there is no medical justification then it is tantamount to murder. Likewise, when assisted suicide is not banned, it still requires medical justification - if there's no solid medical reason for a doctor to euthanize a patient then it's just plain murder, even if the patient really wants to die.

I see these two situations as very similar.

So to the rest of the thread participants, I have two questions:

1) A healthy person with no terminal illness and no significant pain comes into a doctor's office and says "hey doc, I don't want to live anymore". The doc says "alrighty then" and pumps them full of fentanyl until they overdose. Do you consider this to be murder?

2) A healthy mother comes into the doctor with a healthy fetus at 8.5 months into a pregnancy, there's no risk to the mother's health or wellbeing, there's no deformity or health risk for the infant. Mom says "Doc, I changed my mind, I don't want to have a baby anymore". Doc says "No problemo" and aborts the infant. Do you consider this to be murder?

If you gave different answers to those two questions... what do think makes them meaningfully different?

I don't support either case. What you are missing is I see opposing forces--and I feel the attempts to ban are a lot more dangerous than possible abuses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Is it your belief that no doctor anywhere would ever provide a voluntary abortion to a woman who was 8 months pregnant?

Why would a doctor kill a normal healthy fetus at the 8th month of development rather than deliver it via a cesarean procedure? And why would a doctor do it on demand?

Exactly. I'll leave this one to the medical boards, not the politicians. The medical boards at least have people who know the field and can understand the nuances of a case.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Exactly. I'll leave this one to the medical boards, not the politicians. The medical boards at least have people who know the field and can understand the nuances of a case.

That's too intelligent a response and will never land with someone who is paranoid with a healthy dose of anti-intellectualism. For your zealous right wing anti-abortionist any solution short of absolute perfection - in their opinion of course - is evil and anti Jesus. There's only good and evil in this world. Good is anything I can get away with and ask Jesus for forgiveness so I can be perfect again. Evil is anything I can't get away with and that Jesus is going to forgive me anyway.

 

[Playball40]

Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

QFT
Meanwhile the chorus is “but they could!”
It’s just a power play, plain and simple, because the notion that they could is just a notion. The FACT is that they DON”T.

And the fact is, they couldn't. Even RvW had protections from this.

 

[Emily Lake]

Neither scenario is sufficiently plausible as to be worthy of consideration. Doctors don't behave in the way described*, and would not do so, regardless of the legality of the situation.

Is it your belief that no doctor anywhere would ever provide a voluntary abortion to a woman who was 8 months pregnant?

It's a big world. Nothing's impossible.

Is it your belief that it is a situation sufficiently likely to arise as to justify specific legislation (given that all legislation has unintended consequences)?

I think that once is too many times.

I would not be sanguine about a doctor murdering a healthy person at their request under the guise of assisted dying, not even once. I would not be sanguine about a doctor murdering a healthy baby two weeks before delivery at the mother's request under the guise of choice either. I absolutely think it is worthwhile to place reasonable limitations to prevent unlikely but extremely horrible outcomes.

Also, it's not as unlikely as you insist. We went through this just a couple of months ago, and both I and Tigers! provided evidence that late abortions WITHOUT medical risk to the mother or child DO happen.

Is third‐trimester abortion exceptional? Two pathways to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the United States - PMC

In the United States, third‐trimester abortions are substantially more expensive, difficult to obtain, and stigmatized than first‐trimester abortions. However, the circumstances that lead to someone needing a third‐trimester abortion may have ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Of the four cases that they discuss in which the later abortion was prompted by new information TWO of them were cases where the new information was that they were pregnant. In both of those cases, both the fetus and the mother were perfectly healthy, but the mothers did not want to have a kid and ELECTED to abort in the third trimester.