SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Adamas102]

If it was just that person's medical decisions, then yeah. But there's another person there, or a body in a stage of development that will become another person. That's the troublesome part about simply classifying this as an ordinary medical decision.

That's not troublesome at all because a "body in a stage of development that will become another person" isn't a person and therefore deserves no protections that supersede the rights of an actual person.

I imagine you also don't find it troublesome that people aren't forced into making organ donations when someone else's (another actual person's) life is on the line. If it was deemed that you were an ideal donor of a kidney for someone in need of a transplant do you think the government should be able to forcefully take one of your kidneys because someone else needed it to live? Maybe you do, at least that would mean you're consistent on bodily autonomy always being secondary to the lives of others (people or otherwise).

There is no arbitrary point at which "life begins" because reproductive cells are living human cells already. There's also plenty of precedent that places personhood at birth. So like I said, not troublesome at all until people start putting arbitrary (often purely faith-based) cutoffs on a biological process they they are completely ignorant about. Arbitrary cutoffs based on ignorance and faith shouldn't have any weight on medical decisions.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

The problem with this argument is this - organ transplants. There are many other people who in deciding to not donate their body parts are participating in the medical decisions of others. The reason we don't force organ donations, even from corpses, relates to that pesky bodily autonomy issue that every anti-abortion person supports until it's on the topic of abortion. If they were truly "pro-life" as they claim then they would support forced non-lethal organ donation, blood donation, and harvesting every corpse for viable body parts.

But they don't. Because they are all hypocrites.

I... This is an argument that is absolutely bat-shit insane. This is the Wookie Defense. Stop it. Stop it right now.

[Endus]

Part of the conclusion for allowing abortion up until birth is that doctors don't need a law for it because no doctor would perform them for less-than-medically-necessary reasons. The nastier part, and I'll invoke Chonogo's "you're not willing to enlighten yourself," is a de-facto tolerance of some number of late-term abortions for troubling reasons less than the life of the mother or the likely death of the unborn baby. I had hoped to find the "reasonable" pro-choice person that said, "These deaths are unfortunate, but necessary to keep the law off of doctor's hands" or "On the balance, this is the lesser evil," but instead I found dogma on none ever happening. I brought up the doctor that said every pregnancy was a health issue (side-note: a little dire for people that want health issue exemptions), and nothing changed whatsoever.

Every pregnancy is a health issue, for women. Not understanding that is ridiculous.

And the number of unjustified late-term abortions that were conducted knowingly unethically by the doctor involved are so rare as to be nonexistent.

You can repeat medical issue or women's health care until you're blue in the face, but it won't erase the fact of a second human in there, and somewhere before birth that human deserves a little protection. If not, that birth canal is quite a magical personhood-bestowing thing.

Again, don't demand that everyone else abide by your religious dogma. Which is all this is. You may as well be demanding that anyone who doesn't show up for Mass on Sunday be imprisoned as an apostate.

Do you yield that doctors will sometimes err and give an elective abortion to some mother of a post-viability baby for reasons other than the mother's life and the unborn baby's life/severe fetal anomaly? Because I've heard from more than one person that this doesn't happen and won't happen.

1% or less of abortions in the USA occur at 21 weeks or later. If you want us to believe any significant portion of those aren't medically justifiable, the onus is on you to bring that data forward.

And even if you could, you're just making a case for lax ethical standards that should be reinforced, not anti-abortion legislation.

The second, related, question is whether you think laws are so coarse of a measure that no good-faith crafter could write a good one that institutionalizes agreed-upon reasons for a late-term abortion in ways that doctors can feel themselves free to save the life of the mother or abort when the baby is unlikely to survive.

No matter how you craft it, you'll run into circumstances where the doctor determines it's necessary, but the law says "no". And if you don't, then the law is irrelevant, anyway, because doctors aren't doing the thing you're trying to make illegal.

I've seen plenty of laws on informed consent, medically assisted dying, families making medical decisions on behalf of a relative. Is your position that abortion is such a unique medical procedure that none could ever be written?

Again, either the law will restrict legitimate abortions or make them more awkward to approve, or they won't apply to any actual cases and it was a waste of time to pass the law.

Or maybe that current laws on the books must be removed, because the legal intrusion in the work of doctors cannot be justified? I'm trying to outline the extent to which people both sui generis abortion and also call it just another medical procedure.

The legal intrusion in the work of doctors to push religious dogma and misinformed political agendas as the guiding factor rather than medical ethics is what's opposed.

And if you go by medical ethics, the law's already covering the issue completely.

"You have to make pregnancy like organ transplants or you're a hypocrite." I only wish people who were awaiting organ transplants magically didn't need one if you gave them care and support for a few extra months.

Again, there is no "person" harmed in an abortion. Stuff your religious dogma back in your own head, thanks.

If you don't agree with forced organ/tissue donations, whether from living patients or from the bodies of the deceased who did not give prior permission, then you understand that bodily autonomy trumps right to life. If you want to make a case that pregnancy and abortion are special exception to that, the onus is on you to justify that exception.

Without pushing your religious dogma, which you have repeatedly. I'll note this also means you've got to drop the idea that the fetus is a person. If you're unwilling, then you're not interested in a secular discussion of the issue, you're seeking to push religious dogma on those who don't share those views.

- - - Updated - - -

I... This is an argument that is absolutely bat-shit insane. This is the Wookie Defense. Stop it. Stop it right now.

No, it's a perfect demonstration that pro-life advocates don't actually believe their own arguments.

They claim a fetus' hypothetical right to life trumps the pregnant person's bodily autonomy.

If right to life can trump bodily autonomy, then you can force people to donate blood and possibly secondary organs like kidneys, against their will, the same way you're forcing a pregnant person to continue a pregnancy against their will. It's literally the same premises in both cases.

The reality is we don't even allow harvesting from corpses unless they pre-emptively gave permission or their family does after they pass. You can't be forced to donate, because bodily autonomy trumps right to life in every instance.

If you want to argue that pregnancy is magically different, you've got to give us a non-religious justification. I've asked for years, and literally never heard one.

[Gestopft]

Do you yield that doctors will sometimes err and give an elective abortion to some mother of a post-viability baby for reasons other than the mother's life and the unborn baby's life/severe fetal anomaly? Because I've heard from more than one person that this doesn't happen and won't happen. You can comb through this thread's archives to hear the defense to "We don't need laws protecting the unborn baby from post-viability up to the moment of birth, because no doctor would consent to do that procedure except for medically necessary reasons."
...
I had hoped to find the "reasonable" pro-choice person that said, "These deaths are unfortunate, but necessary to keep the law off of doctor's hands" or "On the balance, this is the lesser evil,"

I have pointed to the 'lesser evil' more than once in this thread, in responses to you.

As has been explained to you many times, when you ban that 1% (with exceptions), what ends up happening is that doctors have to weigh their own medical expertise as to the risk to the mother against the ignorance of (specifically Republican) politicians' opinions as to whether or not a woman's life was in danger. When doctors have a potential lawsuit hanging over their head every time a complicated third trimester life-threatening case comes around, the result is increased inaction by medical professionals, and an increased number of women who either die as a result or end up unable to have any future children as a result of said inaction. It costs far more women's lives and potential fertilities than the number of potential babies that would be saved at that stage.

Here, let's wrestle with the moral consequences of "restrictions, with exceptions:"
Positive- an abortion late in pregnancy (very rare) that is unnecessary (even rarer) performed on a woman that could afford something that expensive out-of-pocket (also rare) by a provider willing to abandon medical ethics and not try to save a viable fetus (again, rare) could, theoretically, be stopped (though if she's rich enough, she'll probably find a way anyway).
Negative- Women will die due to inaction by medical personnel that fear legal consequences from ideologically motivated prosecutors who know jack shit about medicine.

Yeah. I'm fine with those. I think intentionally terminating an otherwise viable fetus is generally wrong. Pretty sure I've been very clear about that. I also think that trying to place restrictions on that incredibly rare situation would harm far more women than potential babies it could save.

Every single policy position one can promote involves some level of harm. This is why I tend to base my positions pragmatically, rather than on moral purity or on "what ifs."

Yeah. I don't think it's good to terminate a viable fetus. I also don't think it's good to force women to carry a pregnancy to term that they don't want. I don't think it benefits the children, the parents, or society when children are forced on the parents. I don't think it's good for women when doctors have to worry about being prosecuted over their medical decisions.

If the incredibly rare "unnecessary post-viability termination that the doctor is willing to do and the patient can actually afford" is the price to pay for "women's bodily autonomy, less child poverty, less burden on the foster care system, and the freedom for medical professionals to act on their expertise late in pregnancy," then I am fine paying that price.

So I will yield that a post-viability termination could happen, but to reiterate: a) current evidence indicates it to be incredibly rare, b) current evidence also indicates that not legislating the issue would save more lives and result in more babies, and c) hospital review boards exist with the current practice of medical ethics. Doctors police each other because they all understand that nobody is perfect.

The second, related, question is whether you think laws are so coarse of a measure that no good-faith crafter could write a good one that institutionalizes agreed-upon reasons for a late-term abortion in ways that doctors can feel themselves free to save the life of the mother or abort when the baby is unlikely to survive. I've seen plenty of laws on informed consent, medically assisted dying, families making medical decisions on behalf of a relative. Is your position that abortion is such a unique medical procedure that none could ever be written? Or maybe that current laws on the books must be removed, because the legal intrusion in the work of doctors cannot be justified? I'm trying to outline the extent to which people both sui generis abortion and also call it just another medical procedure.

Potentially a good law could be crafted, but this hinges entirely on good faith, and you'll be rather unsurprised to hear that I don't trust the GOP to operate in good faith in this regard. I'd have to think more about what the law would look like. In the meantime, medical ethical practices exist, so it's not like the Wild West out there or anything.

[Jastall]

Do you yield that doctors will sometimes err and give an elective abortion to some mother of a post-viability baby for reasons other than the mother's life and the unborn baby's life/severe fetal anomaly? Because I've heard from more than one person that this doesn't happen and won't happen. You can comb through this thread's archives to hear the defense to "We don't need laws protecting the unborn baby from post-viability up to the moment of birth, because no doctor would consent to do that procedure except for medically necessary reasons."

The second, related, question is whether you think laws are so coarse of a measure that no good-faith crafter could write a good one that institutionalizes agreed-upon reasons for a late-term abortion in ways that doctors can feel themselves free to save the life of the mother or abort when the baby is unlikely to survive. I've seen plenty of laws on informed consent, medically assisted dying, families making medical decisions on behalf of a relative. Is your position that abortion is such a unique medical procedure that none could ever be written? Or maybe that current laws on the books must be removed, because the legal intrusion in the work of doctors cannot be justified? I'm trying to outline the extent to which people both sui generis abortion and also call it just another medical procedure.

You'd have to be living under a rock to not understand that abortion is a particularly politically charged issue in the US. A lot of European legislatures do what you say- prevent late-term abortions but with a host of exceptions that are generally quite easy to invoke. Obviously there's loads of variations through the various countries and cultures there but we're speaking more of a trend. Abortion is an issue there - it is in practically every country- but it's not the elephant in the room it is in America.

Because when things are left to the legislators in America, the result is what we've seen- States making exceptions so draconian that you basically can't meet them until you're already dying. States saying that voters should decide instead of some court in DC, then going to court when voters decide the wrong way. State legislatures showing a blatant lack of concern for how their sloppily written (at best) laws impact actual care on the ground and leave both doctor and patients unsure, if not afraid, on how to proceed. States clamoring for state's rights and then trying to find ways to stop women going someplace else to get their care.

You say we shouldn't trust doctors as a professional body on this particular matter, without much in the way of data to back that assertion up, but then ask Democrats to just trust that a whole list of legislatures and Courts that have historically been inept on the subject -at best- would all independently find some compromise that would satisfy all. That trust needs to be earned and to say those legislatures aren't even close to that point is putting things mildly. You claim that this good faith exists but the evidence to the contrary is so blatant as to be overwhelming in far too many cases.

[Edge-]

Part of the conclusion for allowing abortion up until birth is that doctors don't need a law for it because no doctor would perform them for less-than-medically-necessary reasons.

As a general rule: Yes.

The nastier part, and I'll invoke Chonogo's "you're not willing to enlighten yourself," is a de-facto tolerance of some number of late-term abortions for troubling reasons less than the life of the mother or the likely death of the unborn baby.

Personally troubling, yes. But a whole load of, "Not my business." in the same way the battle over who had the power of attorney in the Terry Schiavo case was a whole load of, "Not my business." despite also involving life or death.

I wasn't in the room when the deed was done. I wasn't in the room during the time the girl/woman carried the pregnancy. I wasn't in the room for the consultation with their physician. I have no fucking say in their health care decision in the same way I had no fucking say in Terry Schiavo's case.

I had hoped to find the "reasonable" pro-choice person that said, "These deaths are unfortunate, but necessary to keep the law off of doctor's hands" or "On the balance, this is the lesser evil," but instead I found dogma on none ever happening.

Again, nobody has said it "never" happens literally (just figuratively). We don't speak in absolutes. Yes, fringe cases will happen and there are already laws against medical malpractice that would potentially cover that.

You keep alluding to "dogma" and other religious elements in this discussion and projecting them onto our side and it continues to strike me as incredibly dishonest. As if you're upset that the religious basis for your position has been noted and you feel as if it's only fair if you accuse "the other side" of similar religious beliefs when there's nothing of the sort.

I brought up the doctor that said every pregnancy was a health issue (side-note: a little dire for people that want health issue exemptions), and nothing changed whatsoever.

Because. They. Are. Correct.

Every pregnancy is a health risk, literally. That's what pregnancies are. They're also how we procreate as a species! But to pretend that pregnancies don't carry inherent health risks is to deny or reject reality.

You can repeat medical issue or women's health care until you're blue in the face, but it won't erase the fact of a second human in there, and somewhere before birth that human deserves a little protection. If not, that birth canal is quite a magical personhood-bestowing thing.

I'll again note that in almost every horror story shared in this thread the fetus was non-viable, yet the women couldn't get the medical care they needed and suffered until their life was actually at risk, so the, "there's a second human in there" doesn't carry much weight for me.

Further, as noted with Terry Schiavo earlier, we already have legislation on how this process is handled broadly. Next of kin - or the legal partner - has the authority to make medical decisions on behalf of an individual that cannot in theory. Given that the girl/woman carrying the fetus is arguably the "nextest of kin", that would give them authority to make legal decisions on behalf of the fetus.

This is what I'm getting at earlier when you said we needed to have a debate on this topic. We've had this debate for decades. Either y'all haven't been paying any attention, or the, "We need to talk about this more." is just the usual BS line that we see conservatives repeat any time the current status-quo is in their benefit even if it's in direct opposition to public sentiment.

[Endus]

This is what I'm getting at earlier when you said we needed to have a debate on this topic. We've had this debate for decades. Either y'all haven't been paying any attention, or the, "We need to talk about this more." is just the usual BS line that we see conservatives repeat any time the current status-quo is in their benefit even if it's in direct opposition to public sentiment.

Note also that whenever we do have debate, as in this thread, those of us critiquing the pro-life positions and noting the lack of consistency, reason, or secular justification, that all gets treated as us being grossly unfair and attacking them over their opinions.

That's what debate is. If you can't make your position hold up to such scrutiny, then you don't have a valid position.

They don't want "debate". They want to be able to make their stances heard and respected without debate or criticism.

[Lenonis]

I... This is an argument that is absolutely bat-shit insane. This is the Wookie Defense. Stop it. Stop it right now.

I honestly can't tell if this post is being sarcastic or if you truly don't understand how what I posted applies...

[Muzjhath]

I brought up the doctor that said every pregnancy was a health issue

Because this is true.
Every pregnancy carries a risk of death from just being pregnant.
Here's a video of just what the body goes through during pregnancy. It's slightly NSFW from an american PoV as there's transparent female nipples in it.

Every organ within the torso MOVES.

[Lenonis]

"You have to make pregnancy like organ transplants or you're a hypocrite." I only wish people who were awaiting organ transplants magically didn't need one if you gave them care and support for a few extra months.

you mean care and support for years right? Or are you like every other conservative who stops caring once the child is born?

And if you don't understand bodily autonomy just say so. You waving your hands frantically didn't actually address my point.

[Adamas102]

Part of the conclusion for allowing abortion up until birth...

The bolded part already pretty much negates anything else you have to say since your approach is based purely on ignorance and stupidity.

You can keep droning on about "troubling reasons" and "post-viability" and "pregnancy as a health issue", but every time you do we're reminded that you have no idea what any of these things mean. I'm sure you'll continue to ignore those facts and pretend that you're trying to be reasonable, but there's nothing reasonable about your purposeful ignorance.

[Ivanstone]

I'll need to bookmark this the next time someone gives me guff about relabeling the other side.

Go ahead. I’ll go ahead and give a long list about why anti-abortion supporters are pro-death.

Let’s start with:
* Pro-death states have poor maternal death rates.
* Pro-death states have poor infant death rates.
* Pro-death states have poor sex eduction which leads to more unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (some of which are fatal).

And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

If you want to be anti-abortion and not labelled as pro-death please try the following:
* Provide excellent maternal and infant health care.
* Have said healthcare be free to the parents.
* Comprehensive sex education reducing unintended pregnancies.
* Reform the adoption and foster care system.
* Outright bribe people to have kids.
* Provide maternal and paternal leave.

I’d say you should provide a copy of a letter to your local reps asking for these things but you’re in California and your reps already try to do this shit. Again you’re shielded from your own poisionous political beliefs.

[Jastall]

He's not trying to be reasonable. He's trying to twist people in hypocritical knots and it's hilarious to watch him fail, now that I've decided how worthless his opinions on abortion are. It's fucking hilarious.

It's his shtick. All he's interested in, is trying to gotcha people in his endless quest for purely partisan tit for tat fodder.

I respond to him mostly for the sake of whoever reads the forums but doesn't post. It's likely an empty gesture either way, but there's no conversation to be had with someone who is this absolutely determined to prove to all how Democrats are the true bad guys.

[Adamas102]

He's not trying to be reasonable. He's trying to twist people in hypocritical knots and it's hilarious to watch him fail, now that I've decided how worthless his opinions on abortion are. It's fucking hilarious.

Yeah, I know. And while it bothers me a bit that discussion can be hijacked continuously by his same weak, unreasonable "arguments" obviously I'm not immune from responding either. Ah well, such is the nature of online forums.

[Captain N]

Yeah, I know. And while it bothers me a bit that discussion can be hijacked continuously by his same weak, unreasonable "arguments" obviously I'm not immune from responding either. Ah well, such is the nature of online forums.

I just acknowledge that he has an avatar of a sexual predator so any comments that are about abortion are just as anti-woman as the picture he portrays next to his name.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If there were any justice in this forum...tehdang would have been banned long before he baited Chonogo into taking an infraction.

[Benggaul]

"Mommy mommy they keep accurately calling me out on my bullshit! Make the bad man go away!" and poof, the troll's wishes are granted.

Fucking clownshoes.

[Ivanstone]

Yeah, I know. And while it bothers me a bit that discussion can be hijacked continuously by his same weak, unreasonable "arguments" obviously I'm not immune from responding either. Ah well, such is the nature of online forums.

I take it as an opportunity to sharpen my own arguments.

[Xyonai]

When have the GOP ever showed compassion to anyone. And I mean genuine compassion.

I was *going* to say that I remember a lot of outcry during a couple of mass shooting events that hit typically right-wing areas (A political rally at a baseball game and that christian school in Nashville), but then remembered none of the rhetoric was about the victims and more them just using those events as a means to continue publicly demonizing groups they don't like.

So, yeah, I got nothing. At least nothing in recent memory.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with this argument is this - organ transplants. There are many other people who in deciding to not donate their body parts are participating in the medical decisions of others. The reason we don't force organ donations, even from corpses, relates to that pesky bodily autonomy issue that every anti-abortion person supports until it's on the topic of abortion. If they were truly "pro-life" as they claim then they would support forced non-lethal organ donation, blood donation, and harvesting every corpse for viable body parts.

But they don't. Because they are all hypocrites.

Last time I tried to bring this up I had the person I was arguing with pretty much go "NUH-UH! It's not the same!" And refused to elaborate until the thread moved on enough that they could pop back in with more wistfully misinformed bullshit.

But it's an absolutely valid point on the issue of bodily autonomy, and shows how fragile the whole 'Pro-life' argument is when they can't even come up with a rebuttable that doesn't amount to either:

A: Lmao then she shouldn't have had the sex
or
B: Organ transplants and Blood donations aren't natural tho and therefor your argument is totally invalid (let me ignore the broader context of this point on purpose).

[tehdang]

11 Notifications on my account for Christmas:

Go ahead. I’ll go ahead and give a long list about why anti-abortion supporters are pro-death.

Let’s start with:

I responded specifically on the charge of relabeling. I know that in everybody's subjective appreciation, certain causes have no right to the label. And in your own mind, you could say the brand ought to be called anything from pro-terrorist to anti-human-existence. But when you're commenting publicly, you have the choice to use the terms each other would prefer to describe their position (or the commonly accepted ones), or pick your own for them. My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.

The bolded part already pretty much negates anything else you have to say since your approach is based purely on ignorance and stupidity.

You can keep droning on about "troubling reasons" and "post-viability" and "pregnancy as a health issue", but every time you do we're reminded that you have no idea what any of these things mean. I'm sure you'll continue to ignore those facts and pretend that you're trying to be reasonable, but there's nothing reasonable about your purposeful ignorance.

It's the rest of the unquoted part of my post that explain what I mean by this.

you mean care and support for years right? Or are you like every other conservative who stops caring once the child is born?

And if you don't understand bodily autonomy just say so. You waving your hands frantically didn't actually address my point.

I don't think the time element to pregnancy and abortion lends itself towards making comparisons to organ donation or tumors or whatnot.

There will always be a second body in bodily autonomy arguments.

Because this is true.
Every pregnancy carries a risk of death from just being pregnant.
Here's a video of just what the body goes through during pregnancy. It's slightly NSFW from an american PoV as there's transparent female nipples in it.

Every organ within the torso MOVES.

This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.

As pertains to the my post, the past debates in this thread involved "no doctor is going to do that" respecting late-term abortion and extremely late-term abortion. I quoted from an interview with a doctor who was asked about whether he would perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with no health issues at 30 weeks. He replied that every pregnancy is a health issue.

If you have no particular attachment to whether or not elective abortions occur in the late term for prohibiting in law, then neither of those will matter to you.

Personally troubling, yes. But a whole load of, "Not my business." in the same way the battle over who had the power of attorney in the Terry Schiavo case was a whole load of, "Not my business." despite also involving life or death.

I wasn't in the room when the deed was done. I wasn't in the room during the time the girl/woman carried the pregnancy. I wasn't in the room for the consultation with their physician. I have no fucking say in their health care decision in the same way I had no fucking say in Terry Schiavo's case.

Thank you for helping me understand your moral perspective on it.

Again, nobody has said it "never" happens literally (just figuratively). We don't speak in absolutes. Yes, fringe cases will happen and there are already laws against medical malpractice that would potentially cover that.

You keep alluding to "dogma" and other religious elements in this discussion and projecting them onto our side and it continues to strike me as incredibly dishonest. As if you're upset that the religious basis for your position has been noted and you feel as if it's only fair if you accuse "the other side" of similar religious beliefs when there's nothing of the sort.

I think you'll find more than one person saying that "no doctor will do that" or thereabouts when I argued for banning late-term abortions with exceptions. The argument was that such laws were unnecessary, not because no woman would request it, but that no doctor would provide it. It was due to the existence of such posters in this very thread in the past that I linked the late-term abortionist interview.

I would be happy to learn if everyone posting that perspective at the time have since re-evaluated their perspective.

You'd have to be living under a rock to not understand that abortion is a particularly politically charged issue in the US. A lot of European legislatures do what you say- prevent late-term abortions but with a host of exceptions that are generally quite easy to invoke. Obviously there's loads of variations through the various countries and cultures there but we're speaking more of a trend. Abortion is an issue there - it is in practically every country- but it's not the elephant in the room it is in America.

Because when things are left to the legislators in America, the result is what we've seen- States making exceptions so draconian that you basically can't meet them until you're already dying. States saying that voters should decide instead of some court in DC, then going to court when voters decide the wrong way. State legislatures showing a blatant lack of concern for how their sloppily written (at best) laws impact actual care on the ground and leave both doctor and patients unsure, if not afraid, on how to proceed. States clamoring for state's rights and then trying to find ways to stop women going someplace else to get their care.

You say we shouldn't trust doctors as a professional body on this particular matter, without much in the way of data to back that assertion up, but then ask Democrats to just trust that a whole list of legislatures and Courts that have historically been inept on the subject -at best- would all independently find some compromise that would satisfy all. That trust needs to be earned and to say those legislatures aren't even close to that point is putting things mildly. You claim that this good faith exists but the evidence to the contrary is so blatant as to be overwhelming in far too many cases.

I'm having trouble reconciling this post to the one you've responded to. The argument I was responding to was whether or not "doctors are in a better position to make the decisions than legislators." Whether or not that was true, or that it mattered to making laws. That involves more than just stating the existence of laws, or whether certain laws can be draconian, or have been inept. I don't even think the choice is every between trusting doctors and trusting legislators. Doctors continually are trusted to make decisions, while also being forced to abide by legal standards regarding (among other things) the standard of care and potential negligence in their duty. It would be about as absurd to say the laws and consequences are wrong, because they implicitly show distrust in doctors.

So I will yield that a post-viability termination could happen, but to reiterate: a) current evidence indicates it to be incredibly rare, b) current evidence also indicates that not legislating the issue would save more lives and result in more babies, and c) hospital review boards exist with the current practice of medical ethics. Doctors police each other because they all understand that nobody is perfect.

Thank you for illuminating and extending your views regarding questions I had in your former post.

Potentially a good law could be crafted, but this hinges entirely on good faith, and you'll be rather unsurprised to hear that I don't trust the GOP to operate in good faith in this regard. I'd have to think more about what the law would look like. In the meantime, medical ethical practices exist, so it's not like the Wild West out there or anything.

I grasp the claims of bad faith, and why people would look askance at drafted laws in certain states. Not that I think productive discussion on accusations of bad faith can really be had, outside of specific laws and their deficiencies.

I would also assume that "medical ethical practices" do admit for elective late-term abortions, since every pregnancy is a health issue in the eyes of some doctors. I'd like the law to give guidance on "only to save the life of the mother" or "only because the fetus is unlikely to survive infancy/grow past childhood," particularly to respect the second body that's quite far developed in the late term.