SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[s_bushido]

I don't think you get one inch past making this a difference of opinion. Yes, a law that Democrats pushed in Virginia permitted abortions up to the moment of birth. But you want to argue that it would never be made the case. Fine, push that argument. Persuade people. I'll still take making such a procedure illegal under the law, barring only the most serious exceptions. You still want it legal, as much as you want to persuade others it would never happen that way.

It must be legal so that doctors have the option to actually provide proper medical care without worrying about being arrested by fundamentalist pieces of shit who think their literally zero training in any medical field is more of a qualification than an actual medical professional's to determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life. Which, as has been repeated ad nauseam, is the only reason an abortion "up to the moment of birth" is ever considered...despite conservative lunatics desperately pretending otherwise.

Which renders the rest of this pathetic screed utterly meaningless:

Also, excuse me when I totally reject that this is only a "health care decision between a patient and their doctors." There's a second patient in that hospital room. That patient is the baby. That patient gets huge consideration once its post-viability in my book. I'm talking about huge consideration beyond whatever pretense you hold at no doctor and no mother making the wrong decision. That's not good enough. Frankly, your total disregard for the second patient in the room gives me great reason to have some legal protections for that developing life. His or her life is involved, and that's reason to get the state involved as a new citizen's life is concerned. I'll take all the rhetorical licks about potential "amoral monsters" out there, and say the same thing about those who would deny a separate life and no value to the baby.

No one considering ending a pregnancy at that point HASN'T already taken the health of the baby into account. The point is that it is the "doctor and mother's" decision to make. Not some useless fuckwits holding some political power.

[unfilteredJW]

"We're terrible people so everyone else has to be as bad as us."

It's always projection.

[cubby]

It must be legal so that doctors have the option to actually provide proper medical care without worrying about being arrested by fundamentalist pieces of shit who think their literally zero training in any medical field is more of a qualification than an actual medical professional's to determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life. Which, as has been repeated ad nauseam, is the only reason an abortion "up to the moment of birth" is ever considered...despite conservative lunatics desperately pretending otherwise.

Which renders the rest of this pathetic screed utterly meaningless:



No one considering ending a pregnancy at that point HASN'T already taken the health of the baby into account. The point is that it is the "doctor and mother's" decision to make. Not some useless fuckwits holding some political power.

That's the key - all abortions must be legal so that healthcare providers aren't hampered by uncertainty in the law. As an ancillary benefit, women can have 100% control over their bodies and their medical decisions.

[Edge-]

That's the key - all abortions must be legal so that healthcare providers aren't hampered by uncertainty in the law. As an ancillary benefit, women can have 100% control over their bodies and their medical decisions.

Case in point, this thread and the repeated horror stories of women not being able to get crucial care because the hospital was unsure if it was opening itself up to liability as a woman was bleeding to death and whatnot.

Which I'll note that I still see remarkably little about Republicans working to address those problems as we were assured that these "pro-life" Republicans would do. Instead we just have...them continuing to maintain the status quo.

Weird that their rhetoric and actions are so consistently at odds, innit?

[cubby]

Case in point, this thread and the repeated horror stories of women not being able to get crucial care because the hospital was unsure if it was opening itself up to liability as a woman was bleeding to death and whatnot.

Which I'll note that I still see remarkably little about Republicans working to address those problems as we were assured that these "pro-life" Republicans would do. Instead we just have...them continuing to maintain the status quo.

Weird that their rhetoric and actions are so consistently at odds, innit?

The entire abortion argument from the conservative side has been a power play to control women's bodies. The Neo-Cons dress it up dozens of different ways, but in the end, it's a biblical to control and dominate women. How it actually ends...well, the United States might actually lose this one. Because all the conservatives have to do is agree that a fetus is a person, and then award it a Social Security number, and that's it. Put the whole thing under 1st amendment religious freedom, and it's all over.

[Adamas102]

And they're both going to post the ads and voters decide what kind of framing they agree with.

Framing doesn’t matter one bit when you’re dealing with people that are so unbelievably stupid that they believe “abortion right before birth” is a thing. Even the “super extreme activist abortion doctor” that you ignorantly reference from time to time had a good 9 week buffer (anything beyond that HAS to be a serious medical emergency given that the procedure itself becomes more dangerous to the woman at those later stages). Seriously, anyone that’s dumb enough to believe the Republican narrative on this is too dumb to be reasoned with.

[tehdang]

Framing doesn’t matter one bit when you’re dealing with people that are so unbelievably stupid that they believe “abortion right before birth” is a thing. Even the “super extreme activist abortion doctor” that you ignorantly reference from time to time had a good 9 week buffer. Seriously, anyone that’s dumb enough to believe the Republican narrative on this is too dumb to be reasoned with.

Good point. They should consider calling it a buffer instead of a limit.

It must be legal so that doctors have the option to actually provide proper medical care without worrying about being arrested by fundamentalist pieces of shit who think their literally zero training in any medical field is more of a qualification than an actual medical professional's to determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life.

Now who's calling doctors monsters that can't determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life? They're performing abortions under the legal exceptions and have no worries.

No one considering ending a pregnancy at that point HASN'T already taken the health of the baby into account. The point is that it is the "doctor and mother's" decision to make. Not some useless fuckwits holding some political power.

Nothing will change if your hard quasi-religious belief always holds true. The doctor I cited last time around performed late-term abortions for invalid reasons because he considered every pregnancy to be a health-risk for the mother. I'm going to posit that he isn't the most unique snowflake in the entire country and every state, and other doctors let personal feelings and (troubling and difficult to be sure) life circumstances to tip the scales in favor of permitting a late-term abortion. They're taking the baby into account, just not setting the bar high enough for what constitutes permission to end the life, in that instance.

[Endus]

Now who's calling doctors monsters that can't determine fetal viability and threats to the pregnant person's life? They're performing abortions under the legal exceptions and have no worries.

Literally just the pro-lifers. I have no idea where you thought you were going with this.

Nothing will change if your hard quasi-religious belief always holds true. The doctor I cited last time around performed late-term abortions for invalid reasons because he considered every pregnancy to be a health-risk for the mother. I'm going to posit that he isn't the most unique snowflake in the entire country and every state, and other doctors let personal feelings and (troubling and difficult to be sure) life circumstances to tip the scales in favor of permitting a late-term abortion. They're taking the baby into account, just not setting the bar high enough for what constitutes permission to end the life, in that instance.

You're literally just making shit up at this point, because you want it to be true. That's delusional thinking, not reality.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really want a back-and-forth on abortion again, but you've brought this up multiple times and I'm not sure I got a sufficient answer from you.

What bar can laws set that's fluid enough for doctors to make educated decisions about all factors involved, considering the plethora of issues a pregnancy involves? Keeping in mind that there's environmental, monetary, medical, availability, access issues that aren't uniform in the entire country.

Basically, what guardrails/buffers/limits do you find acceptable, but also allow doctors and women to make decisions that fits each individual situation?

Let's recall as well that there is literally no other circumstance where one person's right to life is deemed to trump another person's bodily autonomy. That's the special exception they want to claim to justify banning abortions, but there's literally no precedent whatsoever for doing so, in any other circumstance. That's the core of this entire issue; they want this special exception, and all the rest of this is just fumbling in the dark because they don't have any actual argument to justify this position that isn't based on misogyny and/or religious dogma.

[tehdang]

I don't really want a back-and-forth on abortion again, but you've brought this up multiple times and I'm not sure I got a sufficient answer from you.

What bar can laws set that's fluid enough for doctors to make educated decisions about all factors involved, considering the plethora of issues a pregnancy involves? Keeping in mind that there's environmental, monetary, medical, availability, access issues that aren't uniform in the entire country.

Basically, what guardrails/buffers/limits do you find acceptable, but also allow doctors and women to make decisions that fits each individual situation?

Rape, incest, severe fetal anomaly, and the life of the pregnant woman. State representatives can debate on the various state aid programs to assist women that have environmental, monetary, and access issues. By all means. For medical and availability, have your state-funded programs to assist medically and with available clinics. Early labor and delivery, state aid for full-term delivery, and no obligation to keep and raise the child.

Those are the surrounding laws to value life and protect the mother. The decision to kill should be confined to a period where the unborn baby doesn't have a chance outside; its rights being wholly overridden by mom's and justly so. Let's handle the other factors in ways that don't necessitate killing a viable life.

[Endus]

That's not tehdang's stance, though. He's admitted both to me and this thread that early-term abortions are acceptable.

Then there's no argument for cutting them off at a later point. Not that there was anyway.

He places an elevated value on the fetus at some point in gestation, as most of us do. I believe it's around 20ish weeks?

Higher than the value of a 6-month old born-alive actual infant? Because denying abortion is giving that unborn fetus greater consideration than we give to any living human. That's the problem with the pro-life argument. There isn't any other circumstance where we ever breach someone's bodily autonomy for the purpose of protecting another's life.

I think you're more reasonable, so I'll let you chew on that and try and figure out why you think it should, in the case of abortion specifically, and nowhere else. Consider, by way of counter-example, a father and their 6-month-old infant, who needs a kidney transplant for which the father is a clear match. Without the transplant, the infant will die within a few weeks (I only apply this to exclude other options, to make the comparison fit). As it stands, nobody would say the father can be legally strapped down and forcibly have that organ harvested against his will to save his own child. They might say he's an asshole if he doesn't volunteer, but we're not talking about "you're being a selfish and not-good person", we're talking about legally forcing it against their will.

I'll also note this is actually a very unfair comparison, because the child here was born alive and is fully considered a legal person, which isn't even true of the fetus in the case of an abortion.

I'd love "substantive discussion", but this is where that has to start; either we can agree that bodily autonomy trumps right to life, and you need to explain why abortion should be a special exemption to that principle, or we disagree and you think right to life trumps bodily autonomy, and will have to acknowledge that this means you're in favor of forced organ and tissue harvesting to save lives. I don't see a third option, here. By all means, try and find one. I've literally never heard anyone produce one that did not devolve into some form of either denying that pregnant women own their own bodies (misogyny) or some form of religious dogma that doesn't hold up to even internal scrutiny (it just brings us back to the main question again, inevitably). It isn't just here on these forums that I've never seen this defended; I've literally never seen anyone, anywhere, provide an explanation that holds up to defend the pro-life position.

[unfilteredJW]

At a cursory level, I would think the approach in the 1st paragraph would help outcomes in the 2nd paragraph. I do appreciate that it's not based on a gestational period, but, and even you can admit, I'm not sure we live in a country capable of this much compassion at the governmental level.

It's certainly a better take than I'm used to regarding abortion laws. Bears some thought. I know you don't need my advice, but this micro-discussion should be something you can build into other interactions with posters here, rather than an antagonistic approach of pointing out incompetence/ignorance/malice that some pro-life folks fall into. The antagonistic approach gets more attention(and more vitriol in return), but not for the right reasons.

/soapbox

- - - Updated - - -


Whether you want to admit it or not, every single person has a limit on what they consider an acceptable abortion. The mention of the law regarding abortion up until birth, while framed wrong, is a good example of this, from the other direction.

You and I both scoff at that, and think it's absurd because it doesn't happen. But are we scoffing because we think it doesn't happen, or because deep down we agree that abortion at 40 weeks, while stupid to say, is past our limit. Doctors that perform abortions do turn women down, they have the same impression.

The difference is that you and I don't purport to know more than doctors do. At least I try not to. We also aren't looking at it as a malicious procedure, filled with evil-doers just waiting for the next victim.


The discussion should be about determining when bodily autonomy is overcome by right to life. At some point the baby in the womb has that right. Again, I rely on doctors to tell us that, not lawmakers.

I think the main sticking point, if people on both sides would talk about it reasonably, is whether or not laws should be enacted to protect this fungible determination. I lean towards limited laws. Pro-life people find more offense to the procedure, and want more limits. I can't find the rationale for the latter. That doesn't mean pro-life people want women in chains, and certainly doesn't mean you and I are okay with aborting a 40-week old fetus.

I thought tehdang's latest post regarding the framework of how he'd like to see abortion is a fresh take, and very low on the vitriol we're used to in this thread. Maybe it's just me.

His flowery word usage is to hide the lies, misinformation, and the constant changing of the meanings of words.

You're giving credit to a known liar and manipulator that revels in the pain he causes. Stop it.

[Endus]

Whether you want to admit it or not, every single person has a limit on what they consider an acceptable abortion. The mention of the law regarding abortion up until birth, while framed wrong, is a good example of this, from the other direction.

My limits are defined by medical ethical standards, not arbitrary legal limits, though. I'm attacking the arbitrariness of those legal limits.

You and I both scoff at that, and think it's absurd because it doesn't happen. But are we scoffing because we think it doesn't happen, or because deep down we agree that abortion at 40 weeks, while stupid to say, is past our limit. Doctors that perform abortions do turn women down, they have the same impression.

Canada has no legal limits on abortion, dude, and it's basically not a political issue here at all outside of a very fringe far-right conservative set of nuts. Like, "no significant presence in the Conservative Party" level fringe.

And sure; doctors can decide an abortion's not ethically justifiable. We aren't talking about medical ethics. We're talking about fundamentally arbitrary limits that ignore medical ethical standards.

The difference is that you and I don't purport to know more than doctors do. At least I try not to. We also aren't looking at it as a malicious procedure, filled with evil-doers just waiting for the next victim.

Which is why I rely on those ethical standards, not baseless opinions. And why I oppose any and all attempts to push arbitrary limits that ignore those medical standards.

And "looking at it as a malicious procedure" is indefensible. That's where we're either talking religious extremism or straight-up misogyny. Again, never had anyone make an argument for that which didn't boil down to one or both of those things.

The discussion should be about determining when bodily autonomy is overcome by right to life. At some point the baby in the womb has that right. Again, I rely on doctors to tell us that, not lawmakers.

That's not at all how medical ethics work. If a fetus is viable, a pregnancy will generally be ended by inducing birth or otherwise removing the fetus healthy. If it's a question of the pregnant person or the fetus, though, they'll save the pregnant person. These kinds of things happen pretty regularly, unless there's bans on abortions. There, you just get needless suffering. No one benefits from abortion bans.

I think the main sticking point, if people on both sides would talk about it reasonably, is whether or not laws should be enacted to protect this fungible determination. I lean towards limited laws. Pro-life people find more offense to the procedure, and want more limits. I can't find the rationale for the latter. That doesn't mean pro-life people want women in chains, and certainly doesn't mean you and I are okay with aborting a 40-week old fetus.

I thought tehdang's latest post regarding the framework of how he'd like to see abortion is a fresh take, and very low on the vitriol we're used to in this thread. Maybe it's just me.

The problem with the laws is they're always arbitrary, and ignore medical ethics, because they seek to supercede those ethical principles. The laws are either so limited they're unnecessary because no abortions that occur cross the line the law sets, or they draw the line too narrowly and create needless suffering. We already have laws covering medical malpractice and so forth; I don't see any even possible value in laws limiting abortions, beyond what laws we already have regarding medical ethics in general.

Like, you still haven't given me a single argument that suggests there's any merit to anti-abortion laws, here. I don't see the basis you're operating from, other than vague emotional appeals that I don't consider worth discussing further. A lack of abortion limits under the law does not mean "anyone can get an abortion at any time from any doctor no matter the state of the fetus". It never has. That's a straw man. Medical ethical standards have always been the baseline you're arguing against.

You have to try and convince me (well, the broader audience in general, I'm not the Great Decider of Things, but we're having this convo) that ethically justifiable abortions should be legally prevented from occurring. That's the pro-life argument, dude. That's what you're pushing for. If they aren't ethically and medically justified, they either aren't occurring or we already have laws that cover unethical medical conduct.

[unfilteredJW]

I'm not trying to give him a pass for prior treatment regarding this issue. But if he states something I agree with(regarding his framework), I have to be mature enough to credit him for that. Perhaps I'm getting played here, but a rational answer to a rational question is acceptable to me, motives notwithstanding. It doesn't end the conversation, but it at least puts us on a realistic level of understanding, right? The framework is a lofty goal given our current situation in this country, and one I'm not sure is realistic in my lifetime.

The problem is it's an attack on women, period.

That's their goal, to remove the rights of everyone that's not a wealthy white male.

Can you give me one example of anyone else having to give up bodily autonomy for someone else?

And motives not withstanding? Fuck outta here with that.

[tehdang]

At a cursory level, I would think the approach in the 1st paragraph would help outcomes in the 2nd paragraph. I do appreciate that it's not based on a gestational period, but, and even you can admit, I'm not sure we live in a country capable of this much compassion at the governmental level.

It's certainly a better take than I'm used to regarding abortion laws. Bears some thought.

I think we understand each other.

I know you don't need my advice, but this micro-discussion should be something you can build into other interactions with posters here, rather than an antagonistic approach of pointing out incompetence/ignorance/malice that some pro-life folks fall into. The antagonistic approach gets more attention(and more vitriol in return), but not for the right reasons.

/soapbox

You're certainly an optimist on the possibility of building up non-antagonistic discussions surrounding abortion. I'll note you can't even escape abuse for the offense of believing that I mean what I say. But we do need more optimists in this world, so I won't deny you that outlook.

[Endus]

My comments were from an medical ethics standard POV. Apologies for not being specific in that regard. I wasn't intending to make it political, far from it. I was intending to state that abortion at some level of gestation, with no other underlying complication involved, is unacceptable to even pro-choice people. Even if it's arbitrary, I don't think it harms our integrity by saying that a 40-week "abortion on demand" choice is wrong.

Wrong in terms of medical ethics? Probably. Does that mean you need a whole separate arbitrarily-defined law to limit abortions at that point? Absolutely not. Such laws will invariably get things wrong on fringe cases and contribute nothing of value that wasn't already covered by the ethical standards. That's simply not what the laws are intended to accomplish.

I don't think I disagree with you here. Probably just the tone of abortion conversations that we disagree on, especially when people are attempting to lower the tone. I'll also freely admit that I have the tendency to assume I'm not being trolled/played/baited into thinking I'm discussing this with rational actors. But until it becomes obvious or is admitted by the other party, my naivete tends to hold longer than it should.

Let's recall that the tone is set by pro-life advocates starting at "doctors are murdering literal babies!"

If the response is antagonistic, there's a reason.

[unfilteredJW]

Let's recall that the tone is set by pro-life advocates starting at "doctors are murdering literal babies!"

If the response is antagonistic, there's a reason.

This is the really important bit.

You get back what you put in.

Being nice led to how many COVID deaths and the slow erosion of rights for disenfranchised Americans?

[Adamas102]

Rape, incest, severe fetal anomaly, and the life of the pregnant woman. State representatives can debate on the various state aid programs to assist women that have environmental, monetary, and access issues. By all means. For medical and availability, have your state-funded programs to assist medically and with available clinics. Early labor and delivery, state aid for full-term delivery, and no obligation to keep and raise the child.

Those are the surrounding laws to value life and protect the mother. The decision to kill should be confined to a period where the unborn baby doesn't have a chance outside; its rights being wholly overridden by mom's and justly so. Let's handle the other factors in ways that don't necessitate killing a viable life.

You say that, but I assume you don't actually expect medical experts to make that assessment on a case by case basis and instead base this belief of yours on a simple chart you found on Wikipedia that references a single study conducted at some of the most state of the art facilities in the US (AMC's that are designed to handle the most challenging and complex cases)?

I imagine you have no idea how the age and health of the mother affect the development, and hence the viability, of the fetus? I'm guessing you have no idea the risks that extreme preterm babies face?

But hey, let's put it at 32 weeks. The point at which things like the ability to breathe, eat, and to even just be conscious USUALLY have developed sufficiently enough. Half of babies born at or below this point die without proper medical care. It's also the point at which abortion becomes increasingly risky and even the most abortion absolutist doctor you yourself could find avoids the procedure without additional medically significant factors. Seems like a natural point where sufficient fetal development and a self-imposed limit for elective abortion meet. That SHOULD give you peace of mind without needing legislation to get in the way of the doctors and patients who face catastrophic medical issues and have to tackle the exponentially growing risks of abortion in those last couple of months.

[Muzjhath]

The discussion should be about determining when bodily autonomy is overcome by right to life. At some point the baby in the womb has that right. Again, I rely on doctors to tell us that, not lawmakers.

I think the main sticking point, if people on both sides would talk about it reasonably, is whether or not laws should be enacted to protect this fungible determination. I lean towards limited laws. Pro-life people find more offense to the procedure, and want more limits. I can't find the rationale for the latter. That doesn't mean pro-life people want women in chains, and certainly doesn't mean you and I are okay with aborting a 40-week old fetus.

I thought tehdang's latest post regarding the framework of how he'd like to see abortion is a fresh take, and very low on the vitriol we're used to in this thread. Maybe it's just me.

The thing is this line of thinking must open up another. Where does someone else right to life trump the bodily autonomy of organ donation?
We need half your liver to save the life of Billy over here, you are a perfect match. You don't need half your liver, it will grow back. Billy needs it or Billy will die.

That is the obvious ethical question this opens up.

[LilSaihah]

The thing is this line of thinking must open up another. Where does someone else right to life trump the bodily autonomy of organ donation?
We need half your liver to save the life of Billy over here, you are a perfect match. You don't need half your liver, it will grow back. Billy needs it or Billy will die.

That is the obvious ethical question this opens up.

That honestly seems like a pretty straightforward question to me: when your actions were the ones that put that life at risk.
If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.
Similarly, the conception of a child is (hopefully) the result of an action that was voluntary & with knowledge of the potential consequences.

I dunno about other peoples' positions but for me that's where "abortion in the circumstance of rape & life" comes from. If you were raped, that responsibility isn't yours. If somebody's going to die, that's not a reasonable outcome to expect from sex.

[Endus]

That honestly seems like a pretty straightforward question to me: when your actions were the ones that put that life at risk.
If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.

Literally no legal system on the planet agrees with you, here. It's a monstrous violation of basic human rights. You're advocating for atrocity. Literally Nazi type stuff.

Similarly, the conception of a child is (hopefully) the result of an action that was voluntary & with knowledge of the potential consequences.

Consent to sex is not consent to carrying a child to term. The existence of abortion as an option all by itself precludes that, because continuing that pregnancy isn't an unavoidable outcome. You're trying to make an argument to deny that choice, and your argument is only a pretension that said choice doesn't exist.

Well, it does.

I dunno about other peoples' positions but for me that's where "abortion in the circumstance of rape & life" comes from. If you were raped, that responsibility isn't yours. If somebody's going to die, that's not a reasonable outcome to expect from sex.

Good news; there's no "somebody" who's gonna "die" in an abortion.

Now, you're free to have religious views otherwise, but you're not free to force all of society to abide by your personal religious views.