Roe v Wade is on deck

[GenesisNemesis]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

 

[thebeave]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

 

[ZiprHead]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

This is not the zinger you think it is.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

This is not the zinger you think it is.

And who implemented it? Oh right, a right wing nutjob.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

Second, there is an asterisk here, as the article you site indicates 3 in 4 Americans feel a third trimester should be legal when safety of the mother is involved. As we've seen in Texas, "safety of the mother" isn't a particular concern for those governing Texas which makes Toni's concerns hardly hypothetical.

My comment was in response to Tigers! question, in bold. I interpreted his "young women opponents" comment to be referring to the general population of young women, not specifically "young women opponents" in Congress. But perhaps that assumption was in error. We can let Tigers! chime in with a clarification.

You are correct. My reference to young women was to those within and without your governing houses.

Too bad that wasn't what Toni was talking about.

Regardless, the point stands that, statistically anyway, young women postions on 3T abortions are largely in line with the "ignorant old men" writing laws. But perhaps they are true outliers from the survey. Do you know if that is in fact true?

I certainly don't agree with what I've heard about what is going on in Texas. The people of Texas need to excercise their voting rights and get rid of the ones supporting their abortion laws, IMHO.

If mothers are being denied care that will kill them if not given then yes, vote the bounders out.

They are the Pro-"Life" movement. These are the same people.

 

[Toni]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

And until the real right wing nut jobs got involved, include women in the draft.

Do you know why women have never been drafted? Because sufficient numbers of women have always volunteered to fill every role that women were allowed to have. Right now, Hogsbreath doesn’t want women in the military. Makes his testicles feel less secure than usual or something.

 

[laughing dog]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

Funny. That could be applied to slavery too.
Don't like slavery. Do not own any slaves.

When slavery was legal, people who were against slavery didn’t own them.

The attempt at making a parallel has a chance at a legitimate is if a fetus is a person. Which it isn’t.

What about Thomas Jefferson? And James Madison? No doubt there were other public and non public figures.

I stand corrected. I should have written “didn’t HAVE to own them”. Feel better?

BTW, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were so against slavery, not only did they own slaves, they freed very few of them: Jefferson less then 10 from over 600, Madison none.

 

[laughing dog]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

A very true whataboutism. Feel better?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

I don’t understand your presumption that women would responded to a survey asking about why the had a late term abortion dishonestly. I would be surprised if they said something like; I just woke up one day and decided I just wasn’t feeling it so I thought I’d just abort it.

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

But if you concern is just a couple in a survey with around 30 people... not certain the issue.

I can't believe this distraction has been running for so long.

Do women have the right to themselves? Yes.

What always gets me is how Emily Lake can 'agree' on a main principle, but somehow it always derails into the weeds.

[Emphasis added]
Therein lies the problem: it's not 30 people. Both of you fell for the deception and are taking the survey at face value. Read more carefully. The flyers were distributed as part of the discharge packet and were distributed in various other places. It's not that Jarhyn and I think there might be a couple of liars amongst 30 women, but that we think there might be a couple of liars amongst uncounted women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How are the able to verify?!?!

. They could ask the person to sign a waiver so they could look at their medical records or ask them to show them medical records.

The records would contain the information the survey was seeking. If they had the records they wouldn't need the interviews.

Really? I know my medical records do not have in depth interviews about my motivations or why I made decisions.

Of course they don't. But this is a contentious topic, I would be astounded at the medical records not containing documentation as to why they were having a third trimester abortion. There has been a very long-running attempt to frame such abortions as convenience, I find it preposterous to think a clinic would not take care to document that they were doing it for the right reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Estimation of development are accurate to within about a week. And since I propose a threshold well within the 90% survival range, I think the margin of error you’re complaining about is irrelevant.

Survival is not binary. The survival limit is normally oxygen. Thus your 90% survival is 10% who are suffocated to death and the rest are probably damaged.

And you still don't understand that the real issue is with handling of problems.

State's Abortion Drug Law Heightens Hemorrhage Risk for Pregnant Patients

Misoprostol in Louisiana is now kept locked in a secure room

www.medpagetoday.com

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. Most abortions that are later in the pregnancy were WANTED pregnancies and there is a lot of grief associated with it. But it's often the best decision medically. No govt/politician/lawmaker/person other than the family involved and the doctor should have ANY input.

If you believe this to be true, then why do you oppose requiring a medical reason be documented that late in the pregnancy?

The problem with this is that you think that it's not being done now. Doctors write down why they do things!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of women have died in hospital parking lots while “demanding” abortions, mostly in States that are susceptible to “abortion on demand” rhetoric.

Translation: some states have and sued and harmful restrictions so the only possible response is to have no restrictions at all!

This is a silly, and thoughtless, argument.

Because we keep seeing restrictions misused. They're designed to look reasonable but not be reasonable.

At this point their track record is so bad that there is no reason to believe there's any honesty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not.

That's playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of a "fact". There is and always will be subjective judgement involved with determining what is or isn't medically necessary, even in a room full of physicians. If all medical experts firmly agreed on when abortions were necessary, this whole social debate would be simpler. The legal question would be much simpler.

Heap fallacy once more.

Just because some cases exist that are borderline or difficult to determine exactly does not imply that there is no meaningful difference between cases that are NOT borderline.

If we accept your argument as presented, then it follows that a doctor could decide that removing an ectopic pregnancy isn’t medically necessary and you would have no standing to disagree.

The problem is one of creep. Reasonable rules existed, the punishment crowd kept pushing, pushing, pushing. Expect pushback!

As for the ectopic--we've had a politician try to make doctors offer reimplantation in the uterus. The fact that that's not a possibility is irrelevant.

Same as Texas won't define what constitutes a medically necessary abortion. That's our problem!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What always gets me is how Emily Lake can 'agree' on a main principle, but somehow it always derails into the weeds.

This reads like you’re blaming me for the incessant details that other people keep bringing up. Perhaps I’m wrong, but the scare quotes around agree certainly come across that way.

Because you're being Republican about it--always trying to slip in more restrictions when there is an appearance of agreement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And in the second place, you realize you’re advocating a lunatic fringe position, don’t you? The existence of unnecessary late-term abortions isn’t controversial!. Everyone but a few extremists believe they happen. Here’s public opinion as distilled by a neural network trained on what everyone and their brother are saying. I asked Google “do any experts claim third trimester medically unnecessary abortions never happen” and it said

”No medical experts claim third-trimester abortions never happen for elective or non-medical reasons, but medical bodies and researchers agree that third-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare (less than 1% of all abortions) and are almost universally performed due to severe fetal anomalies or medical necessity.”​

So your theory is that a bunch of prolifers chose to undermine their own political agenda by adding to the case for making access to early term abortions easier, purely in order to convince the public of something the public already believe and to settle a dispute that’s only going on inside pro-choice circles. Do you really not understand how ridiculous that sounds? Why would any prolifer even be aware of your fringe opinion, let alone care enough about it to lie-for-Jesus in order to discredit it at the cost of building up the case for better sex education and easier early abortions?

You trust the AI?? In an area rife with deception?? What are you smoking?!

There has been major deception in the punishment community pretending the fetal defect abortions ("elective" in medical parlance) are "elective" in common usage, as by choice. Some of us have been trying to make this clear in this thread. Why in the world do you think the AI could possibly see truth behind the deception?!

Another guy keyword searching instead of reading.

As I said, I’m relying on the AI to reflect its training data, not to see truth. It’s sampling public opinion, which is something it’s better at than you or me. If the issue you’re postulating the hypothetical liars-for-Jesus are trying to trick us about were actually controversial then the controversy would be in the training data and would have come to the AI’s attention.

If you believe there are medical experts who say medically unnecessary third-trimester abortions never happen, how is this information available to you and to prolifers but not to Google?

That's asking to prove a negative.

The thing is there is an absence of proof of ones that aren't necessary. The punishment crowd would absolutely love such, but they don't have any to point to. Thus we have these "two" "studies" that purport to show unnecessary ones in a way that can't be disproven.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

doctors in my state can't use that one because people had strong negative emotional reactions to descriptions of it. Women up here must endure more risky and damaging procedures because the safest method isn't an option. And that's not good.

IMO it's an example of how pro-life legislation becomes pro-death when it's enacted. The decision to abort a pregnancy is one thing. Putting women in needless danger is something else. The safest option for medical treatment should always be available even if the description of the method is disturbing.

Exactly. It's about dismantling it piece by piece. Each piece doesn't look crazy, but the combination becomes so.

And medical decisions are often based on risk, not on certainty. Do the risks of acting on average cause less harm than the risks of not acting? They know it's not always the correct answer. Very often the doctor will not be able to prove that the abortion was necessary--because in many cases it's not clear cut.

Or take a simple case: they can't visualize the pregnancy. Could be they missed it, likely it's ectopic. Sensible medical practice is a chemical abortion--not because it's known to be ectopic, but that it's believed to likely be. Wait to be sure, you likely replaced pills with abdominal surgery and took half her fertility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a very simple question you yourself could answer, if you pay attention at all. Legally speaking, "any live birth outside the womb, regardless of gestational age, is legally recognized as a person born alive with full legal and human rights". No one who's pro-choice has an issue with that. Try a different argument. I'm told you're supposed to be super good with logic though, so it's a bit strange you ignored that bit.

Careful with that one, you've got an edge case in it. What exactly constitutes "born"??

Obviously, passed through the birth canal = born. But what about c-sections? Sure, we usually consider it "born" at that point. So what's the status of a fetus that the uterus is surgically opened, surgery is done on the fetus, and then it is placed back in the uterus and it's sewn up?