Author Topic: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West  (Read 67743 times)

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #50 on: September 02, 2021, 08:39:32 PM »
Yes, it’s called plan B, it’s effectiveness isn’t great and access is of course a problem.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2021, 09:33:50 PM »
@PKFFW - no, that’s not a good solution. The morning-after pill is a heavy dose of hormones that I’m sure could be damaging to one’s health if used regularly. Though maybe some of the medical people in here would know.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2021, 10:26:42 PM »
Side effects:

Nausea: ~14% to 23% of women
Abdominal pain: ~18% of women
Fatigue: ~17% of women
Headache: ~17% of women
Dizziness: ~11% of women
Breast tenderness: ~11% of women
Vomiting: ~6% of women
Diarrhea: ~5% of women

planb.ca/en/what-to-expect

Nothing terrible but also not something you want to deal with on a regular basis. Also, anecdotally I've seen it cause severe mood swings, not surprising given it's a huge dose of hormones.

Then there's cost, Google says $11-45 per pill.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2021, 10:30:22 PM by Davnasty »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8824
  • Location: Avalon
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2021, 01:33:38 AM »
Side effects:

Nausea: ~14% to 23% of women
Abdominal pain: ~18% of women
Fatigue: ~17% of women
Headache: ~17% of women
Dizziness: ~11% of women
Breast tenderness: ~11% of women
Vomiting: ~6% of women
Diarrhea: ~5% of women

planb.ca/en/what-to-expect

Nothing terrible but also not something you want to deal with on a regular basis. Also, anecdotally I've seen it cause severe mood swings, not surprising given it's a huge dose of hormones.

Then there's cost, Google says $11-45 per pill.
The Lysistrata option is looking better and better.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2021, 03:28:50 AM »
Voting:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-election-bill-contains-new-voting-obstacle/
The problem which could disenfranchise 100k or more voters is that voter registration in the past did not require both identifiers. So to vote by mail, these voters would have to remember which identifier they provided, or guess. I think any discussion of voter ID is ridiculous if not paired with a national ID. You agree to a nation ID for all citizens, with measures to ensure it's easy to get/replace and free? Fine, then talk to me about requiring it to vote and other citizen-government interactions. Oh, you don't want, then GTFO.

Abortion:
It's real simple. A pregnant person (I'll admit I also sometimes forget that it's not just women who can carry fetuses) plus their appropriately licensed medical team is the only system we need to regulate abortion. That's it. Sure, this relies on a robust medical training and provision system, but since we all want that any way for all of our other health needs, it's baked into the formula as far as I'm concerned. If you're adding anything to that, I think you need to investigate your real motives.

this slipped by me when i read it the first time. who besides women can carry a feuses?

They might be referring to trans men with a uterus.

Fair enough

We need to clean up our language

To many posts and stories I’ve read refer to this as an attack on women’s rights. It’s an attack all right. But not on women’s rights but on birthing peoples rights.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2021, 03:41:45 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9332
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2021, 04:48:58 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

You still have t answered the question of why you care so damn much about a decision that's between a person caring a child and a medical professional. You have no inherent right to determine what is best for any person in that situation nor does the govt

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #57 on: September 03, 2021, 05:58:13 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

I used to be unapologetically, staunchly pro-life. Most of my college friends, and many of my family members have attended pro-life rallies. Some of my family members have prayed and said rosaries outside PP.

My position has shifted to be pro-life for my own family (as in, my wife and I), and pro-choice for anyone who is not inside my own household. It does break my heart thinking about kids who will never be born, but you know what? That's not my business and certainly not my crusade. Therefore, abortion rights are pretty far down the list of my priorities for political candidates but I'm definitely ruling out people without compassion for the situation that most if not all women seeking abortion are in.

So to answer your question - "how far would I go?" - all the way to the date that the doctor and the patient agree upon. Because that's none of my business. I'm going to make an assumption that in the 0.9% of abortions that happen late-term, none of them are done with the specific intent to murder the child for the sake of murdering the child. But I can think of an edge case (because, 7+mos and mental health is almost certainly happening so rarely they're all edge cases).

Imagine a birthing individual, who may or may not already have children, who is suffering from depression/anxiety - or possibly even diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Imagine they find out that their 7.5month old fetus has a genetic disorder that's going to require lifelong care and medical attention, who is going to keep them at home by their bed most days, who is going to require frequent out-of-state trips to a specialty hospital.

Have you ever dealt with depression/anxiety? Have you ever watched your partner deal with anxiety attacks? Have you ever tried to pull someone out of a depressive spiral which you fear may end badly? I have.

I can easily see the parent-to-be in this situation crying themself to sleep at night hysterically. Weeping over the loss of their life as they thought it would turn out. Thinking about suicide because they wouldn't have to deal with the pain and suffering of being a parent to someone who needs to be attended to every single day.

In that circumstance, and through consolation with the OB team and a psychiatrist, I can see two outcomes - birth & hope for adoption, or termination. Neither outcome is going to be positive for them, but both are far better than two years down the road hearing about a murder-suicide because they just couldn't deal with their medically handicapped child and the guilt of bringing this person into the world who will only know pain.

----

Yeah, that's an edge case. But can you see that happening? I can. So yeah - I have no business dictating why or when an abortion occurs. Neither do these lawmakers. Neither does anyone on this forum unless it is in direct relation to their own child.




Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #58 on: September 03, 2021, 07:03:52 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

I used to be unapologetically, staunchly pro-life. Most of my college friends, and many of my family members have attended pro-life rallies. Some of my family members have prayed and said rosaries outside PP.

My position has shifted to be pro-life for my own family (as in, my wife and I), and pro-choice for anyone who is not inside my own household. It does break my heart thinking about kids who will never be born, but you know what? That's not my business and certainly not my crusade. Therefore, abortion rights are pretty far down the list of my priorities for political candidates but I'm definitely ruling out people without compassion for the situation that most if not all women seeking abortion are in.

So to answer your question - "how far would I go?" - all the way to the date that the doctor and the patient agree upon. Because that's none of my business. I'm going to make an assumption that in the 0.9% of abortions that happen late-term, none of them are done with the specific intent to murder the child for the sake of murdering the child. But I can think of an edge case (because, 7+mos and mental health is almost certainly happening so rarely they're all edge cases).

Imagine a birthing individual, who may or may not already have children, who is suffering from depression/anxiety - or possibly even diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Imagine they find out that their 7.5month old fetus has a genetic disorder that's going to require lifelong care and medical attention, who is going to keep them at home by their bed most days, who is going to require frequent out-of-state trips to a specialty hospital.

Have you ever dealt with depression/anxiety? Have you ever watched your partner deal with anxiety attacks? Have you ever tried to pull someone out of a depressive spiral which you fear may end badly? I have.

I can easily see the parent-to-be in this situation crying themself to sleep at night hysterically. Weeping over the loss of their life as they thought it would turn out. Thinking about suicide because they wouldn't have to deal with the pain and suffering of being a parent to someone who needs to be attended to every single day.

In that circumstance, and through consolation with the OB team and a psychiatrist, I can see two outcomes - birth & hope for adoption, or termination. Neither outcome is going to be positive for them, but both are far better than two years down the road hearing about a murder-suicide because they just couldn't deal with their medically handicapped child and the guilt of bringing this person into the world who will only know pain.

----

Yeah, that's an edge case. But can you see that happening? I can. So yeah - I have no business dictating why or when an abortion occurs. Neither do these lawmakers. Neither does anyone on this forum unless it is in direct relation to their own child.

I would say my stance is very similar to yours. I generally dont care and dont want to interfere or have the government interfere into other peoples lives.

I can imagine the scenario your describing causing extreme mental anguish and trauma. But there is no qualification that the child is the cause of that trauma. There is nothing stating that the child needs to have a genetic disorder and require care beyond what a normal child needs.

What the bill states is that the mental safety of the birthing person. The kid could be normal/healthy by all measures but the birthing person is suffering from some horrible mental anguish. At that point, that far along and under those circumstances, in my opinion, thats murder.

Is there any limit at which point society can collectively say, nope your not doing that. Yes, we have laws now. The TX law is bad, but there is a not so small segment of the population who want to go full steam in the other direction. they tried, and thank god failed in VA.


TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #59 on: September 03, 2021, 07:04:55 AM »
The new abortion law is an abomination and if it weren't for some of the ridiculous SCOTUS rulings lately I would assume it would get struck down.  Their failure to block its implementation is hopefully the worst thing that will happen.  No doubt many people will have undue hardship/heartache in the meantime.

I like to talk about abortion in general, because I hate that we are held hostage to the issue, when neither side is actually serious about resolving it.

So I'm going to go down a few of the talking points from both sides:
------------------
Guitarstv insists, virtually every time the topic comes up on these forums, that a fetus is not a baby.  And the thing about that argument, is that G presents it as a "you are trying to elicit an emotional response by calling abortion babymurder" (point ceded) and the thing is, there is no point you could make in the discussion more certain to accomplish nothing and elicit an emotional response as trying to make that distinction that a fetus is not a baby.  I strongly recommend, if the intent is to have a conversation, that you ignore the murderbaby characterization of abortion, because what that person is really doing is advertising the specific brand of belief they have, and allowing you to engage them along effective vectors.  You will never, ever, talk them out of the idea that abortion does not result in no child where otherwise it would have been child.

The point at which we're talking about a human life is indeterminate, and there is no there, there.  Every avenue of discussion along these lines will not be constructive, because there is simply no way to resolve this point.  Whatever arbitrary point you decide to say "that's a life" can be successfully used via reductio ad absurdum to argue in favor of either 216 month abortions (if you think abortion is OK) or mandatory sexual intercourse with any fertile person (if you think abortion is wrong).  Clearly there IS a middle ground, but no: religion, science, etc, can offer what is at best a very well considered opinion and at worst: wrong.  We simply do not know, and we cannot know.  Some of us have managed to make a kind of peace with the likelihood that it's probably OK to roto-rooter that thing before it can feel pain, but that doesn't mean we are right, it means we are willing to accept that as likely true and there's just alot goin on in the world, at a certain point make a decision and move on.  It has not always been illegal to murder you own baby.  Civilization doesn't even need a general prohibition on murder to get along just fine.  Where we draw the line about what is, and what is not, OK, is arbitrary and always has been.  Your foundation is, and always has been, built on convention.  Any attempt to establish some sort of authority for where you draw the line is doomed.
-----------------

Sanctity of life vs. sanctity of each person's self

This is the "it's to protect the rights of the child" vs "the person's right to make choices about their own body."

Were you to evaluate this along the standard moral guide of "the decision that results in the most people alive at the end of the day is probably the right answer" then the conflict between the woman's right to make decisions about her body and the fetusbaby's need for that body in order to not die, then the choice is clear.  And if that's not the standard we're using, then please stop taxing me to stop things like starvation and violent crime.  If it's OK for you to take from me without my consent for the benefit of some hypothetical other, then why is it wrong for me to insist that you make a similar sacrifice for the very real fetusbaby?  Insisting that a woman should just be free to make that decision is attractive to me, because the same logic that supports that supports me likewise shedding responsibilities that I too find inconvenient.

I will believe the "personal freedom/choice" argument when you fully surrender any right to paternal support.  Likewise, if a woman can choose to have an abortion, the father of the child should get to make the same choice.  You should require the consent of the father to bring the child to term.  The pro-choice argument is immediately destroyed, to my mind, by the reality of the inconsistency of the stances on this issue.  Pro-child once the thing is society's problem, pro-individual rights until then, except only the mother's right, everyone else get fucked.  If we have an obligation to each other, AND EVERY OTHER PART OF THE LIBERAL PLATFORM INSISTS THIS IS TRUE, then pregnant women have an obligation to the fetusbaby.  It is hypocrisy to imply otherwise.

For the Pro-life people, if you haven't personally gone out of your way to provide housing, education, employment, community, acceptance, actualization, to mothers and expectant mothers, regardless of the circumstances of the birth, go fuck yourself.  You don't care about abortion and are doing NOTHING, practically, to prevent the practice.  There would be WAY fewer abortions if religion wasn't there to call the mom a whore and the kid a bastard.  You are the cause of the issue, go away and it will go away.  Even better, live the word of the BIG JAY EZUS and create a world where a woman would choose to bring the baby into it because that's seen as the blessed miracle it is and not the COMPLETE CATASTROPHE you've turned it into.  Go read the book, there's nothing in the new testament about treating people like shit until they do what you want them to and Levitical law was vetoed by THE KING.  Going all old testament on borties is rejecting the savior.  It is hypocrisy to imply otherwise.

There is simply no excuse, no reason, no appropriate time, to be disrespectful to others.  And committing the various violations required to enforce an abortion ban requires numerous, egregious, unacceptable invasions of privacy.

--------------------
"My body my choice when it comes to vaccines but not when it comes to fetus- what morons"

Uh yea, absolutely, both of you.  People should be free to refuse a vaccine, you are arguing that it is OK to mandate them.  If it's OK to mandate a vaccine then it's OK to mandate pregnancy, forget banning abortion, you can straight up haul women off to be impregnated.  I'm vaccinated, that was a personal choice, everyone should make that choice, get vaccinated against all the things!  But the line you cross to make it mandatory is....not to be crossed without grace and compassion, certainly not with the...grotesquery, of the current national discourse.  Engaging with folks with mockery and contempt has completely failed.  Next time lets try something else.  Acknowledge the reality of the tribal/partisan separation and do NOT make critical, life-or-death things partisan issues.  "It's OK for me to be an ass because they're dumb!"  Michelle Obama told you to go high.  You believe yourself to be better, act like it.  Rise above.

But what about all the dead people?!!!  Uh yea, what about all the aborted people?  It is so strange to me to see the autistic shrieking at each other.  That said, I'm going to make a ruling here, the anti-vax people are definitely wrong.  We can totes make an exception to the personhood-choice for this one thing and not slippery-slope our way into mandatory pregnancy/abortion bans.  That doesn't take a whole lot of cognitive dissonance tolerance.  This here is a "this solution is just too easy to not do" territory.

--------------------

What would be great:

The imminently practical solution of: acknowledge as a society that alot of abortions are undesirable and we we should really work towards creating a world where fewer women choose to get them, not through fear, intimidation, or lack of access (all of which does not save the soul of the one who desires the abortion, intent is equally damning), but through compassion and love and awesome communities (which would save the soul by removing most of the temptations).

And then for those like myself who can't be bothered to personally engage with creating the above (beyond, you know, not being an ass to pregnant women and smiling at babies), don't create any babies you know for sure won't be brought to term (wrap it up or keep it tucked, absolutely no rape, not even a lil bit), and otherwise stay out of it.

As for women that straight up just do it for the convenience, well, I too have sinned, and if we stop all sins, then Jesus died for nothing...

As far as the "society has an obligation to prevent, through punishment of offenders, murder..."

I'm not so sure it does.  I sort of feel like the REAL way we prevent murder is by not being horrible to people.  Think about it, for real, deep down, do you not kill people because it's against the rules?  Naw, it's cause it's a chore like everything else and nobody is REALLY up in your face asking for it.  I'd straight up murder anyone that crossed certain lines, no questions asked, and chief among offenses that'd get you insta-murdered by TOYM is crawling up into my uterus uninvited and hanging out for nine months.

But anyway, it's a complicated topic and as a country the U.S. has not discussed it responsibly in my lifetime.  The autistic screeching of both sides has made zero progress and created a situation where fringe belief structures yield outsized influence on both parties, endangering personal freedoms to maintain faction alliances.  "Woman's right to choose" and "Abortion is murder" are bullshit overly simplistic non-constructive unnuanced extremist positions, and so many people are going to be hurt, all over the country, if SCOTUS doesn't grow a pair and end the fight.  That it is still on the table is a systemic failure of the Democratic party.  Leaving it there as a threat, "vote for us or they'll take it away," should make every pro-choice person join the republican party and vote for pro-choice republicans.  That republicans have finally started acting on the religious fringe demands should make every rational person join the democrats and vote for fiscally conservative democrats.

My hope is that SCOTUS strikes it down hard, in a censorious way.  Excoriate the people who passed it as incompetent, weak, tiny-dicked fascists.  That's probably not going to happen, but what a shitshow.  I think it's going to get struck down just from the enforcement mechanism, because that's a monstrous enforcement protocol that deserves to be ruled unconstitutional.  Would be great if they went a step further and ordered the drafters be shot.  Garbage humans, absolutely garbage.  Imagine looking at how awful the litigiousness of our society is, and all the problems it causes, and deciding, "yea, more of that please."

And yea, anybody that thinks "going to another state" is in any way viable, most of Texas is 8+hour drive from a border, so it's a huge fucking problem.  This will stop abortion in Texas, completely.  OR it will result in the end of accurate maternal medical records, depending on the evidentiary requirements the courts use when the first lawsuits come through.  "I see you have form 6996-AB, certifying the pregnancy was 3 weeks old at the time of the termination, signed by the uterus owner and witnessed by a notary public, case dismissed."  Make abortion court like eviction court, "can the fetus provide evidence it was older than 6 weeks?  What do you mean it isn't here?  Well you have to BE here to be represented, case dismissed on 6th amendment grounds."

From a long term perspective though, abortion bans always result in the complete destruction of the group that passed them.  Takes 20-25 years, but it always happens.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #60 on: September 03, 2021, 07:07:33 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

You still have t answered the question of why you care so damn much about a decision that's between a person caring a child and a medical professional. You have no inherent right to determine what is best for any person in that situation nor does the govt

same reason i would care if an adult was shot and killed on the street.

I would view aborting, killing, a healthy 8/9 month old baby in womb murder. As does current law. democrats in VA tried changing that law so that a birthing person under mental suffering could kill a healthy baby at 9 months.

would that ever likely happen? no. Should extreme laws like that be used to justify the new TX law ? NO

It seems the country has agreed to this uneasy, middle ground and then we get nuts on mostly the right, and occasionally the left pushing things to far

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9332
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #61 on: September 03, 2021, 07:13:33 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

You still have t answered the question of why you care so damn much about a decision that's between a person caring a child and a medical professional. You have no inherent right to determine what is best for any person in that situation nor does the govt

same reason i would care if an adult was shot and killed on the street.

I would view aborting, killing, a healthy 8/9 month old baby in womb murder. As does current law. democrats in VA tried changing that law so that a birthing person under mental suffering could kill a healthy baby at 9 months.

would that ever likely happen? no. Should extreme laws like that be used to justify the new TX law ? NO

It seems the country has agreed to this uneasy, middle ground and then we get nuts on mostly the right, and occasionally the left pushing things to far

So what's your address so we can send all these healthy babies to you after we force them to be born. Birthing is a millisecond part of "life". Life and the livelihood of the baby and the family is far longer. And in most cases these are people lower down the socioeconomic scale. So since you want them born you should be paying to support their life.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #62 on: September 03, 2021, 07:28:50 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

You still have t answered the question of why you care so damn much about a decision that's between a person caring a child and a medical professional. You have no inherent right to determine what is best for any person in that situation nor does the govt

same reason i would care if an adult was shot and killed on the street.

I would view aborting, killing, a healthy 8/9 month old baby in womb murder. As does current law. democrats in VA tried changing that law so that a birthing person under mental suffering could kill a healthy baby at 9 months.

would that ever likely happen? no. Should extreme laws like that be used to justify the new TX law ? NO

It seems the country has agreed to this uneasy, middle ground and then we get nuts on mostly the right, and occasionally the left pushing things to far

So what's your address so we can send all these healthy babies to you after we force them to be born. Birthing is a millisecond part of "life". Life and the livelihood of the baby and the family is far longer. And in most cases these are people lower down the socioeconomic scale. So since you want them born you should be paying to support their life.

I support dead beats lay abouts and drug addicts every year with my tax dollars. Keep it coming

or

https://www.americanadoptions.com/

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9332
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #63 on: September 03, 2021, 07:32:21 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

You still have t answered the question of why you care so damn much about a decision that's between a person caring a child and a medical professional. You have no inherent right to determine what is best for any person in that situation nor does the govt

same reason i would care if an adult was shot and killed on the street.

I would view aborting, killing, a healthy 8/9 month old baby in womb murder. As does current law. democrats in VA tried changing that law so that a birthing person under mental suffering could kill a healthy baby at 9 months.

would that ever likely happen? no. Should extreme laws like that be used to justify the new TX law ? NO

It seems the country has agreed to this uneasy, middle ground and then we get nuts on mostly the right, and occasionally the left pushing things to far

So what's your address so we can send all these healthy babies to you after we force them to be born. Birthing is a millisecond part of "life". Life and the livelihood of the baby and the family is far longer. And in most cases these are people lower down the socioeconomic scale. So since you want them born you should be paying to support their life.

I support dead beats lay abouts and drug addicts every year with my tax dollars. Keep it coming

or

https://www.americanadoptions.com/

1/6 kids go hungry so we need to raise more tax dollars already to support those being born so you can't have your cake and eat it too you're not paying enough today to support kids yet you want more.

Life's basic needs include FOOD, water and shelter. If you're truly pro LIFE and not just pro birth you should be for supporting the LIFE of all these babies you think need not be murdered.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 07:38:19 AM by boarder42 »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8824
  • Location: Avalon
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #64 on: September 03, 2021, 07:37:38 AM »
Sanctity of life vs. sanctity of each person's self

This is the "it's to protect the rights of the child" vs "the person's right to make choices about their own body."

Were you to evaluate this along the standard moral guide of "the decision that results in the most people alive at the end of the day is probably the right answer" then the conflict between the woman's right to make decisions about her body and the fetusbaby's need for that body in order to not die, then the choice is clear.  And if that's not the standard we're using, then please stop taxing me to stop things like starvation and violent crime.  If it's OK for you to take from me without my consent for the benefit of some hypothetical other, then why is it wrong for me to insist that you make a similar sacrifice for the very real fetusbaby?  Insisting that a woman should just be free to make that decision is attractive to me, because the same logic that supports that supports me likewise shedding responsibilities that I too find inconvenient.
You are equating biological life with the constitutional right to life and these are not identical things: the right to life of necessity incorporates the right of the living person to chose what is done with that living body.  The "foetusbaby" gains that right only once it is living outside the body of the woman who was carrying it.

I will believe the "personal freedom/choice" argument when you fully surrender any right to paternal support.  Likewise, if a woman can choose to have an abortion, the father of the child should get to make the same choice.  You should require the consent of the father to bring the child to term.  The pro-choice argument is immediately destroyed, to my mind, by the reality of the inconsistency of the stances on this issue.  Pro-child once the thing is society's problem, pro-individual rights until then, except only the mother's right, everyone else get fucked.  If we have an obligation to each other, AND EVERY OTHER PART OF THE LIBERAL PLATFORM INSISTS THIS IS TRUE, then pregnant women have an obligation to the fetusbaby.  It is hypocrisy to imply otherwise.
The argument for the man's involvement in the decision on abortion doesn't work because:
1) The man has already consented to giving up his "personal freedom/choice"regarding child support by putting his sperm in proximity of an egg, and that consent by a man at the time of conception does not alter or affect, or be a condition of, a subsequent decision by the woman on whether that fertilised egg should be carried to term or not.

2) Enabling a man who has fertilised an egg to have a say in whether or not the fertilised egg is carried to term can only result in what the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution calls "slavery" and "involuntary servitude".  (Count this for double if the fertilisation happened as a result of rape, but even without rape the argument still applies.  Neither the constitution nor any sense of what is right should give a man control over a woman's body because of a random act of fertilisation.)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 08:09:20 AM by former player »

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #65 on: September 03, 2021, 07:42:45 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

You still have t answered the question of why you care so damn much about a decision that's between a person caring a child and a medical professional. You have no inherent right to determine what is best for any person in that situation nor does the govt

same reason i would care if an adult was shot and killed on the street.

I would view aborting, killing, a healthy 8/9 month old baby in womb murder. As does current law. democrats in VA tried changing that law so that a birthing person under mental suffering could kill a healthy baby at 9 months.

would that ever likely happen? no. Should extreme laws like that be used to justify the new TX law ? NO

It seems the country has agreed to this uneasy, middle ground and then we get nuts on mostly the right, and occasionally the left pushing things to far

So what's your address so we can send all these healthy babies to you after we force them to be born. Birthing is a millisecond part of "life". Life and the livelihood of the baby and the family is far longer. And in most cases these are people lower down the socioeconomic scale. So since you want them born you should be paying to support their life.

I support dead beats lay abouts and drug addicts every year with my tax dollars. Keep it coming

or

https://www.americanadoptions.com/

1/6 kids go hungry so we need to raise more tax dollars already to support those being born so you can't have your cake and eat it too you're not paying enough today to support kids yet you want more.

yes i'd be fine raising taxes more to make sure kids dont go hungry. and yes we need more. Id much rather increase taxes to help pay for some kid born of a US citizen than pay for food shelter education and healthcare of the families that migrate here illegally. Im looking at you south america.

anyway back on point, are you OK ending the life of a healthy child 8/9 months in the womb because of the birthing person's mental safety? ill stipulate that it would be rare but not sure that makes it OK

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9332
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #66 on: September 03, 2021, 07:47:44 AM »
I've asked twice and I'll go for lucky number 3

what does it mean to give a women a late term abortion at 7,8,9 months due to her "mental safety"

I am asking that in good faith. Those words were written into legislation, they mean something to someone.

and yeah, you do get nutso doctors like Kermit Gosnell.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

maybe he is the only one.
I think the only way you could ask that question "in good faith" is by having no experience of mental illness, and even with no experience the application of a little imagination should enable you to suggest some answers.

It's like he thinks America doesn't have one the best medical systems in the world (if it can be afforded but that's a seperate discussion) with the most highly qualified and trained doctors in the world, who are able to provide recommendations to their patients based on that patients unique health needs and circumstances...

Y’all are great at doing your best not to answer the question

What mental safety requires a late term abortion.
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.

You still have t answered the question of why you care so damn much about a decision that's between a person caring a child and a medical professional. You have no inherent right to determine what is best for any person in that situation nor does the govt

same reason i would care if an adult was shot and killed on the street.

I would view aborting, killing, a healthy 8/9 month old baby in womb murder. As does current law. democrats in VA tried changing that law so that a birthing person under mental suffering could kill a healthy baby at 9 months.

would that ever likely happen? no. Should extreme laws like that be used to justify the new TX law ? NO

It seems the country has agreed to this uneasy, middle ground and then we get nuts on mostly the right, and occasionally the left pushing things to far

So what's your address so we can send all these healthy babies to you after we force them to be born. Birthing is a millisecond part of "life". Life and the livelihood of the baby and the family is far longer. And in most cases these are people lower down the socioeconomic scale. So since you want them born you should be paying to support their life.

I support dead beats lay abouts and drug addicts every year with my tax dollars. Keep it coming

or

https://www.americanadoptions.com/

1/6 kids go hungry so we need to raise more tax dollars already to support those being born so you can't have your cake and eat it too you're not paying enough today to support kids yet you want more.

yes i'd be fine raising taxes more to make sure kids dont go hungry. and yes we need more. Id much rather increase taxes to help pay for some kid born of a US citizen than pay for food shelter education and healthcare of the families that migrate here illegally. Im looking at you south america.

anyway back on point, are you OK ending the life of a healthy child 8/9 months in the womb because of the birthing person's mental safety? ill stipulate that it would be rare but not sure that makes it OK

As I've said many times I'm ok with the choice any person makes in this situation bc it's not my place nor the govts place to decide it's a medical condition between pregnant person and their doctor. No one else should be involved in this situation.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #67 on: September 03, 2021, 08:15:07 AM »
Guitarstv insists, virtually every time the topic comes up on these forums, that a fetus is not a baby.  And the thing about that argument, is that G presents it as a "you are trying to elicit an emotional response by calling abortion babymurder" (point ceded) and the thing is, there is no point you could make in the discussion more certain to accomplish nothing and elicit an emotional response as trying to make that distinction that a fetus is not a baby.  I strongly recommend, if the intent is to have a conversation, that you ignore the murderbaby characterization of abortion, because what that person is really doing is advertising the specific brand of belief they have, and allowing you to engage them along effective vectors.  You will never, ever, talk them out of the idea that abortion does not result in no child where otherwise it would have been child.

A fetus is alive.  A fetus is a collection of cells that will one day grow into a human.  A fetus (depending on stage of development) can move and feel pain.  However:

fetus - an unborn offspring of a mammal
baby - a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

A fetus isn't a baby.  Not by the legal, scientific, or common definition of the word.  Calling abortion 'baby murder' is like calling a someone who has had sex with another consenting adult a pedophile - it's using an incorrect word purely for emotional impact.  Because of this, I'd argue that there is no point you could make in the discussion more certain to accomplish nothing and elicit an emotional response as trying to try to argue that a fetus is a baby.  That's why I point it out when it happens.

If someone outright refuses to accept the definition of what words mean that's on them.



The point at which we're talking about a human life is indeterminate, and there is no there, there.  Every avenue of discussion along these lines will not be constructive, because there is simply no way to resolve this point.  Whatever arbitrary point you decide to say "that's a life" can be successfully used via reductio ad absurdum to argue in favor of either 216 month abortions (if you think abortion is OK) or mandatory sexual intercourse with any fertile person (if you think abortion is wrong).  Clearly there IS a middle ground, but no: religion, science, etc, can offer what is at best a very well considered opinion and at worst: wrong.  We simply do not know, and we cannot know.  Some of us have managed to make a kind of peace with the likelihood that it's probably OK to roto-rooter that thing before it can feel pain, but that doesn't mean we are right, it means we are willing to accept that as likely true and there's just alot goin on in the world, at a certain point make a decision and move on.  It has not always been illegal to murder you own baby.  Civilization doesn't even need a general prohibition on murder to get along just fine.  Where we draw the line about what is, and what is not, OK, is arbitrary and always has been.  Your foundation is, and always has been, built on convention.  Any attempt to establish some sort of authority for where you draw the line is doomed.

Human life is of course, completely different than the definition of 'baby'.

A fetus is absolutely a human life.  It's a collection of human cells, and the cells are alive.  When you perform an abortion you are certainly ending a human life.  This is not a good thing.  My arguments related to abortion don't attempt to argue with this fact at all.

The thing is, we believe that personal bodily autonomy has precedent over human life.  If your neighbour is dying in need of a rare blood type and you're a donor match . . . we don't kick down your door and require that you give up your blood to save his life.  Even if he's certain to die without your donation.  Personal bodily autonomy has precedent over human life.  Even if the only thing needed to save that guys life is a little bit of your blood - that would be taken in 20 or 30 minutes and do no real harm to you personally we'll let the guy die because you don't want to give it.

By the same token, a woman should be able to choose to revoke the use of her womb and the rest of her body by an unwanted child.  Why?  Because a woman has bodily autonomy, and this takes precedence over human life.  If she doesn't want the fetus any more, then the fetus should be removed.  If the (now) baby can be kept alive and continue to live/develop after removal - great!  If death occurs upon removal because it needed the support that the woman was giving it - so be it.  That is no different from the neighbour dying because he didn't get a blood transfusion from you.  Neither situation is ideal, but bodily autonomy has precedence over human life.

It is a logically inconsistent position to demand that a woman surrender bodily autonomy to help a fetus without also demanding that you surrender bodily autonomy to help a sick neighbour.  The person who is having their body used by another (either baby, or neighbour) should be fully in charge of decisions made about the use of their own body.  Not you, or me, or a doctor, or the government.

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #68 on: September 03, 2021, 08:17:04 AM »

*snip*

yes i'd be fine raising taxes more to make sure kids dont go hungry. and yes we need more. Id much rather increase taxes to help pay for some kid born of a US citizen than pay for food shelter education and healthcare of the families that migrate here illegally. Im looking at you south america.

anyway back on point, are you OK ending the life of a healthy child 8/9 months in the womb because of the birthing person's mental safety? ill stipulate that it would be rare but not sure that makes it OK

I don't know how much you're going to sway me, or anyone else on this thread with the argument. As a former (from a sociopolitical perspective) pro-lifer, I feel pretty strong in my beliefs and that especially includes autonomy for anyone in this situation with consultation from appropriate medical personnel. They should be making the decision, not you or I.

And what happens, when denied, to the person in your question or my example who decides to throw themselves down a flight of stairs? Or to try and overdose on painkillers? They'll then probably go to jail and/or kill themselves. Is that a great outcome? And what if the original pregnancy was a result of rape or a manipulative relationship? Should this person be put in that position because of something out of their control?

And I'll ask again, have you ever cradled someone in the throes of a depressive episode? Witnessed someone you live have a crippling anxiety attack? Mental health is misunderstood by even the best experts.

I think the assumption that many have is that these abortions are done out of malice, spite, or sport and not as incredibly difficult, emotionally charged, heartwrenching considerations between the person carrying the child and the medical providers doing a service. I would be seriously interested to see if there's even one documented case of a third trimester abortion performed for no other reason than the sport of it.

CodingHare

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 443
  • Age: 32
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #69 on: September 03, 2021, 08:32:21 AM »
You all want to use this thread to debate where the law should draw the line on abortions.  Meanwhile, 12.6 million actual, already alive, real women live in Texas.  They have to wonder about the consequences for failure rates in birth control.  They have to wonder if Plan B will be denied to them by a pharmacist because it is against that pharmacist's beliefs.  They have to schedule a flight to another state if they can afford it, a potential 6 hour drive depending on where they live plus hotels plus getting that time off from work.  They have to worry about other private citizens suing them for the mere suspicion of having an abortion (who wants to bet black women get disproportionately reported under this ludicrous system?)

It's hard not to feel like you don't care if that above suffering gets 20 words of "of course this is too far" but then you spend 10,000 words debating BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS EDGE CASE?  AREN'T WOMEN MURDERERS AND INCONSISTENT?  It's exhausting. Doesn't feel to me like the thread cares about the real women here, because you don't want to talk about their struggles.

Lets start with abortion access for everyone in every state up to viability.  Then, once people actually have access (and not just one clinic per state heavily picketed by people screaming about murder), then we can wait and see if there are real cases of women using late term abortions to murder.  Because it just doesn't happen (or if it does, show me the stats), so why legislate for it when you don't have evidence of it happening?

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #70 on: September 03, 2021, 08:33:15 AM »

*snip*

yes i'd be fine raising taxes more to make sure kids dont go hungry. and yes we need more. Id much rather increase taxes to help pay for some kid born of a US citizen than pay for food shelter education and healthcare of the families that migrate here illegally. Im looking at you south america.

anyway back on point, are you OK ending the life of a healthy child 8/9 months in the womb because of the birthing person's mental safety? ill stipulate that it would be rare but not sure that makes it OK

I don't know how much you're going to sway me, or anyone else on this thread with the argument. As a former (from a sociopolitical perspective) pro-lifer, I feel pretty strong in my beliefs and that especially includes autonomy for anyone in this situation with consultation from appropriate medical personnel. They should be making the decision, not you or I.

And what happens, when denied, to the person in your question or my example who decides to throw themselves down a flight of stairs? Or to try and overdose on painkillers? They'll then probably go to jail and/or kill themselves. Is that a great outcome? And what if the original pregnancy was a result of rape or a manipulative relationship? Should this person be put in that position because of something out of their control?

And I'll ask again, have you ever cradled someone in the throes of a depressive episode? Witnessed someone you live have a crippling anxiety attack? Mental health is misunderstood by even the best experts.

I think the assumption that many have is that these abortions are done out of malice, spite, or sport and not as incredibly difficult, emotionally charged, heartwrenching considerations between the person carrying the child and the medical providers doing a service. I would be seriously interested to see if there's even one documented case of a third trimester abortion performed for no other reason than the sport of it.

No I havent been that close to someone in that situation or even witnessed it. Anxiety yes, but not to that point.

Everyone having body autonomy is a good place to be. But as society we frequently, maybe less now, put people suffering from mental suffering in a mental hospital or whatever its called all the time. We dont let them out. We force them to take medicine they dont want. And we do this simply to protect them from themselves.

I dont understand the late late term abortion for rape. If a birthing person is raped and gets pregnant why are they waiting that long to have the procedure? at some point the birthing person just has an obligation to the kid growing inside them. Sorry, you dont get to wait until day before delivery to change your mind. Again, im sure that is rare to almost never happening, but why the reflexive action against that small limitation i dont understand.

Hey we just disgaree on the late term abortion part, i think there is a lot of common ground on the rest.

the poster above confirmed they are fine with abortions at 8-9 months for any reason. That is not a position i could be swayed to.

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3104
  • she/her
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #71 on: September 03, 2021, 08:54:26 AM »
You all want to use this thread to debate where the law should draw the line on abortions.  Meanwhile, 12.6 million actual, already alive, real women live in Texas.  They have to wonder about the consequences for failure rates in birth control.  They have to wonder if Plan B will be denied to them by a pharmacist because it is against that pharmacist's beliefs.  They have to schedule a flight to another state if they can afford it, a potential 6 hour drive depending on where they live plus hotels plus getting that time off from work.  They have to worry about other private citizens suing them for the mere suspicion of having an abortion (who wants to bet black women get disproportionately reported under this ludicrous system?)

It's hard not to feel like you don't care if that above suffering gets 20 words of "of course this is too far" but then you spend 10,000 words debating BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS EDGE CASE?  AREN'T WOMEN MURDERERS AND INCONSISTENT?  It's exhausting. Doesn't feel to me like the thread cares about the real women here, because you don't want to talk about their struggles.

Lets start with abortion access for everyone in every state up to viability.  Then, once people actually have access (and not just one clinic per state heavily picketed by people screaming about murder), then we can wait and see if there are real cases of women using late term abortions to murder.  Because it just doesn't happen (or if it does, show me the stats), so why legislate for it when you don't have evidence of it happening?

I came here to say just this.  I cannot believe the navel gazing, how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin discussion here.  Where people are ignoring real life and talking ad nauseum about hypothetical situations about which they have no knowledge.  It's total bullshit and makes me literally nauseated by the assholery on display here.

In my FIRE, one thing I've decided to do is work for a practical support organization.  One day a week all day, I help people get to their abortions or pay for their abortions.  I help people who are still early enough to take the pill find info about how they can do a self-managed abortion, I help people who have to fly across the country for a later-term abortion and everything in between.  I've been doing this for almost 3 years now.  As you might guess, I'm working with exclusively poor people.  Rich people will always get all the abortions they want, so talking about them having an abortion the day before they go into natural labor is a waste of time.  You could outlaw it and it won't stop anyone, to the extent it happens.  Poor people are not deciding on a whim to abort.  Your lack of imagination about why they are terminating a pregnancy at 27 weeks doesn't mean there aren't myriad reasons that would make sense to everyone here. (and no I'm not going to make a list.  I've got shit to do today and it would take me all weekend anyway.)  No one does something on a whim that costs $10-20k (just for the surgery) except people who are rich.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #72 on: September 03, 2021, 08:58:00 AM »
You all want to use this thread to debate where the law should draw the line on abortions.  Meanwhile, 12.6 million actual, already alive, real women live in Texas.  They have to wonder about the consequences for failure rates in birth control.  They have to wonder if Plan B will be denied to them by a pharmacist because it is against that pharmacist's beliefs.  They have to schedule a flight to another state if they can afford it, a potential 6 hour drive depending on where they live plus hotels plus getting that time off from work.  They have to worry about other private citizens suing them for the mere suspicion of having an abortion (who wants to bet black women get disproportionately reported under this ludicrous system?)

It's hard not to feel like you don't care if that above suffering gets 20 words of "of course this is too far" but then you spend 10,000 words debating BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS EDGE CASE?  AREN'T WOMEN MURDERERS AND INCONSISTENT?  It's exhausting. Doesn't feel to me like the thread cares about the real women here, because you don't want to talk about their struggles.

Lets start with abortion access for everyone in every state up to viability.  Then, once people actually have access (and not just one clinic per state heavily picketed by people screaming about murder), then we can wait and see if there are real cases of women using late term abortions to murder.  Because it just doesn't happen (or if it does, show me the stats), so why legislate for it when you don't have evidence of it happening?

Guilty party here.

your 100% right this got derailed. I would again agree its a terrible law. From what I read and I dont understand the details of how the law works exactly, the supreme court passed the buck for now but will likely strike it down once a different suit is brought against it. or something like that. Awful for the birthing people who have to struggle through it now, but im pretty sure the ship will be righted.

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #73 on: September 03, 2021, 09:09:54 AM »
Looking at the make up of the current supreme court, I do not share your optimism.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #74 on: September 03, 2021, 09:37:01 AM »
The hypocrisy of "pro-lifers" who rail against increased funding/efforts to keep the kids we already have safe and healthy (money for universal pre-k, more for public schools, SNAP, increased gun control laws, free school lunches, etc) while still claiming to actually care about kids makes me vomit.

There are "pro-lifers" who spread nonsense theories about Sandy Hook.

There are TONS of "pro-lifers" who oppose Biden's new budget plan that invests heavily in child care, education, health care, and paid leave for parents.

I mean, if someone just wants to force a woman to give birth to a baby, but that person refuses to fund programs that provide support and care for that child during their life, I don't know how to label that person but they sure as hell aren't "pro-life."


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #75 on: September 03, 2021, 09:39:55 AM »
Pro-life != pro-good-life.

:P

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #76 on: September 03, 2021, 09:55:20 AM »
Pro-life != pro-good-life.

:P

Well, I sure as hell hope it doesn't mean, "I hope you are born, but have a shitty life of poverty and oppression, facing obstacles (that I support!) at every turn." 

(spoiler:  it does mean that)

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #77 on: September 03, 2021, 10:17:39 AM »
Pro-life != pro-good-life.

:P

Well, I sure as hell hope it doesn't mean, "I hope you are born, but have a shitty life of poverty and oppression, facing obstacles (that I support!) at every turn." 

(spoiler:  it does mean that)

It doesn't have to be pure hypocrisy.

How about massive funding for pregnant people and adoption services.

Not massive funding for a welfare state where people can have kids and not provide for their own offspring.

All kids should have basic needs met but how comfy of a life should we provide the parents?

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #78 on: September 03, 2021, 10:25:51 AM »
At times its almost like the GOP wants a class of low cost labor who can't seem to find a way to prosperity. Hmm...

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #79 on: September 03, 2021, 10:31:13 AM »
All kids should have basic needs met but how comfy of a life should we provide the parents?

It is mind boggling to me that someone could believe it's possible to have a parent living in poverty with no negative impact on a child.  Could you explain exactly how you envision this working out in real life?

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #80 on: September 03, 2021, 10:48:37 AM »
I am similarly boggled on that one.

I breathlessly await the 'small government' approach Tyler will suggest that will possess sufficient resources to:

1) provide "all basic needs" of the children, which Tyler conceded must be provided, but also to...
2) thoroughly study each family's income and expenses to make sure that no gov't money will provide any level of (gasp!) comfort to the parent(s).

I'm sure there's an obvious solution sitting here somewhere.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #81 on: September 03, 2021, 10:50:56 AM »
All kids should have basic needs met but how comfy of a life should we provide the parents?

It is mind boggling to me that someone could believe it's possible to have a parent living in poverty with no negative impact on a child.  Could you explain exactly how you envision this working out in real life?

I wouldnt make the claim that there is no negative impact. I would agree that there is.

Right now for the destitute we fund for free breakfast/lunch, free education through college, free health care, free or reduced housing, heating and fuel assistance, free food via WIC or food stamps for the family, earned income tax credit and the list goes on and on.

There is always a tug on each side. One side thinking we do to little, the other side thinking we do to much, we wind up somewhere in the middle.

My point was, in my opinion, we shouldn't fund the lifestyle of a parent who has kids to be so good they have no motivation to work. I dont think we do that now, nor should we start too.

of course kids from wealthier families have a head start/advantage that will always be the case.

Cool Friend

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #82 on: September 03, 2021, 11:07:36 AM »
All kids should have basic needs met but how comfy of a life should we provide the parents?

It is mind boggling to me that someone could believe it's possible to have a parent living in poverty with no negative impact on a child.  Could you explain exactly how you envision this working out in real life?

I wouldnt make the claim that there is no negative impact. I would agree that there is.

Right now for the destitute we fund for free breakfast/lunch, free education through college, free health care, free or reduced housing, heating and fuel assistance, free food via WIC or food stamps for the family, earned income tax credit and the list goes on and on.

There is always a tug on each side. One side thinking we do to little, the other side thinking we do to much, we wind up somewhere in the middle.

My point was, in my opinion, we shouldn't fund the lifestyle of a parent who has kids to be so good they have no motivation to work. I dont think we do that now, nor should we start too.

of course kids from wealthier families have a head start/advantage that will always be the case.

A shame that those kids from wealthier families won’t have any motivation to work.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2021, 12:17:35 PM »
Quick question: can I turn in a man who creates an unwanted pregnancy in Texas and collect $10,000?

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2021, 12:27:34 PM »
Quick question: can I turn in a man who creates an unwanted pregnancy in Texas and collect $10,000?

Can I spread my illegitimate seed in Texas and turn in every woman that aborts my offspring?

I guess I could. Side hustle?

Sorry, that got dark. Seriously, fuck Texas.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2021, 12:33:33 PM »
Because it just doesn't happen (or if it does, show me the stats), so why legislate for it when you don't have evidence of it happening?

One could say the same about “voter fraud.”

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #86 on: September 03, 2021, 01:27:56 PM »
I am going to assume Tyler D is being willfully ignorant of existing case law about right to abortion since he keeps bringing up questions that have already been answered by other posters. Roe vs. Wade, spells out the rights and limitations right to abortion. Especially given the fact that he uses the word baby, murder, etc.

"The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

So, it is based on state by state legislation, where that line is. Regardless, in no case can a doctor kill a fetus or just born baby that is able to survive on it's own. How come right to life people have no issues trusting trained medical professionals to make fine determinations on a whole host of medical decisions, EXCEPT in this case? There is a whole field of medical ethics, maybe look it the fuck up?

There seems to be a base assumption (primarily by men?) that a women who is forced to keep a pregnancy and go through labor is only experiencing I guess temporary discomfort? I'm not sure what they are thinking? being pregnant and going through labor permanently changes your body. You can also actually die from the effects of pregnancy and labor (for example I had a friend who very much wanted her pregnancy, but ended up being hospitalized for eclampsia). I had another friend because of her preterm issues, had to have her cervix literally sewed shut and be on bed rest for weeks until she gave birth. What happens then? Who is going to pay for that women's medical care? Replacement of her work costs as she is no longer able to work? Can the husband sue the doctor, the hospital when suicidal woman commits suicide after being denied an abortion? What about the case of a women with uncontrolled mental illness, or drug addiction gives birth to an infant with serious issues? Or an older woman who is forced to keep an oops baby and has a stroke or heart attack or even breast cancer 5 years later from the increase of hormones in her body?

Just from friends and "life" (honestly the shit most women DON'T talk to men about) BELIEVE ME, the person best qualified to make this truly life altering decision is the women, and NOT the government. I'm not going to even go into emotional, psychological trauma based on their life situation.

Especially given in the US there are such high rates of: domestic abuse. teens being predatorily targeted by older men. Lack of prenatal and postnatal care. No decent job security or protections if pregnant. No guarantees of paid family leave in the case of pregnancy and birth. 

I would be ok with such draconian laws if it was equally applied to men. Men who get women pregnant can also be sued. Those who are careless with their insemination, for example multiple accidental pregnancies will have their balls cut off, and the tipster can keep the balls for a trophy. 
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 01:48:39 PM by partgypsy »

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #87 on: September 03, 2021, 01:42:01 PM »
How come right to life people have no issues trusting trained medical professionals to make fine determinations on a whole host of medical decisions, EXCEPT in this case? There is a whole field of medical ethics, maybe look it the fuck up?

Have you paid attention to the latest pandemic? I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. I would say that anti-intellectualism is rife in the USA.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #88 on: September 03, 2021, 01:46:10 PM »
How come right to life people have no issues trusting trained medical professionals to make fine determinations on a whole host of medical decisions, EXCEPT in this case? There is a whole field of medical ethics, maybe look it the fuck up?

Have you paid attention to the latest pandemic? I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. I would say that anti-intellectualism is rife in the USA.

you know, I was thinking that when I posted that. At the very least, these people are typically not spending lots of time passing legislation from preventing medical professionals from doing their jobs. Mostly protests random attacks on people enforcing mask usage, threats (including kidnapping) of public and school officials. 
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 01:51:13 PM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #89 on: September 03, 2021, 01:46:40 PM »
I'd like a mandatory vasectomy policy for men at the age of 19.  Prior to 19 a man could save up and store as much semen as they believe is necessary for future children.

This should radically reduce the need for abortions and therefore make everyone happy.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #90 on: September 03, 2021, 01:49:32 PM »
How come right to life people have no issues trusting trained medical professionals to make fine determinations on a whole host of medical decisions, EXCEPT in this case? There is a whole field of medical ethics, maybe look it the fuck up?

Have you paid attention to the latest pandemic? I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. I would say that anti-intellectualism is rife in the USA.

you know, I was thinking that when I posted that. At the very least, these people are typically not spending lots of time passing legislation from preventing medical professionals from doing their jobs. Mostly protests random attacks on people enforcing mask usage, threats to public officials, occasional zip tying of school officials.

Mostly.

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #91 on: September 03, 2021, 01:51:53 PM »
 I can't see how the responsible lawmakers can remain in office unless women's suffrage is at least partially abolished.
Maybe just for premenopausal women to start with.
As things are going, it doesn't appear too far fetched and would be the necessary next step after having unleashed the vigilantes on them.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 01:53:51 PM by PeteD01 »

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #92 on: September 03, 2021, 01:52:09 PM »
How come right to life people have no issues trusting trained medical professionals to make fine determinations on a whole host of medical decisions, EXCEPT in this case? There is a whole field of medical ethics, maybe look it the fuck up?

Have you paid attention to the latest pandemic? I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. I would say that anti-intellectualism is rife in the USA.

you know, I was thinking that when I posted that. At the very least, these people are typically not spending lots of time passing legislation from preventing medical professionals from doing their jobs. Mostly protests random attacks on people enforcing mask usage, threats to public officials, occasional zip tying of school officials.

Mostly.

things are worse than I thought. That is a terrible ruling!

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #93 on: September 03, 2021, 01:54:02 PM »
I just can't stop thinking of this. Too close to truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ydHjbKaL5A

Fish Sweet

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #94 on: September 03, 2021, 01:55:34 PM »
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.
Tone doesn't carry well on the internet, so imagine me saying this firmly but not unkindly:  That is why your imagination of PTSD/trauma/mental health issues doesn't matter.  And why people in this post keep referring back to what you seem to view as a cop-out answer, that the ultimate decision can only be made between a pregnant person and medical professionals dedicated to their care.

These decisions are so personal, so unique to the person and their own situation that outsiders have no fricken clue at all. 

An anecdote, cw for depression and suicide I guess:  I have a nonbinary friend who is a happy spouse and parent.  They want a big family, and were wildly excited when they got pregnant again.  But when they were pregnant with their second, they were hit so fucking hard in the mid-second trimester with dysphoria and peripartum depression that they almost had to go into a psych hold.  It came as a surprise to everyone, as their first pregnancy went fine.  It raised so many questions for their family, and abortion was on the table because it had to be.  My friend was the breadwinner, but would they have to quit their job and leave the family with no income & no insurance? They had lost a ton of weight - how was this going to impact their health?  What would happen if their mental health got worse and the unthinkable happened, leaving their husband a widower to raise their son alone?  How long could they delay making a decision?

Ultimately, my friend chose (CHOSE) to keep going, relied heavily on their team of medical professionals, took a bunch of unpaid time off, got fussed over every day by their husband, and delivered a healthy daughter (the whole pregnancy experience totaled 83k!! hurrah American healthcare.) They had a very bad bout with postpartum depression too, but are doing much better now.  They and their husband are discussing whether to try for child#3, going in now knowing what could happen.

My friend's story is a happy one.  They had excellent health insurance, trusted doctors, a loving spouse, supportive family & job, high income + savings cushion, a healthy child, everything a pregnant person needs to be supported in their pregnancy.  Many people don't have all of those things, or even most of them.  And yet, it was a close thing.  They chose to share all this very private info with their friends (and I don't think they'll mind me using their story now), but many people would never disclose anything so personal. 

One more thing - you're focused on late term pregnancy & abortion, and questions of viability.  I would say that for the vast majority of pregnancies where they're at that point, the pregnancy is very much wanted and the abortion is heartrending for people who are ready and hoping to be parents.  Pregnant people don't go 7 months and then decide on a whim that they feel like undergoing invasive surgery, paying 10k+, and driving/flying out to a specialized clinic that's behind bulletproof glass for funsies. Again, these kinds of decisions can only be made between the pregnant person and their medical professionals.  We, the strangers peering through the windows of their lives, don't have a clue.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #95 on: September 03, 2021, 03:15:49 PM »
Are you really so unimaginative or so unaware of the myriad forms of mental problems that people can have that you're unable to think of any?

Off the top of my head...
- Major suicidal depression
- A psychiatric or psychotic breakdown
- PTSD that heavily impacts her day to day life
- Sudden traumatic loss, injury, disease, change of life circumstances (such as becoming homeless or getting diagnosed with MS or losing her whole family or)

And that's all from me thinking about other people's potential circumstances for a few minutes.

Yes, i having a hard time imagining a LATE term abortion for PTSD. And I'm thinking really late term. Again, when engaged in an abortion discussion I like to know just how far the pro choice side is willing to go. In this case it would seem up until day of delivery for PTSD.

Im honestly viewing this abortion as ending the kids life. and someone said upthread that abortion is not ending the life in all cases. So that might be were im getting hung up on this. If the baby is 8 months old and birthing person is suicidal, removing the kid via c section or something so both are safe makes total sense. But that just wasnt what i was viewing as abortion.
Tone doesn't carry well on the internet, so imagine me saying this firmly but not unkindly:  That is why your imagination of PTSD/trauma/mental health issues doesn't matter.  And why people in this post keep referring back to what you seem to view as a cop-out answer, that the ultimate decision can only be made between a pregnant person and medical professionals dedicated to their care.

These decisions are so personal, so unique to the person and their own situation that outsiders have no fricken clue at all. 

An anecdote, cw for depression and suicide I guess:  I have a nonbinary friend who is a happy spouse and parent.  They want a big family, and were wildly excited when they got pregnant again.  But when they were pregnant with their second, they were hit so fucking hard in the mid-second trimester with dysphoria and peripartum depression that they almost had to go into a psych hold.  It came as a surprise to everyone, as their first pregnancy went fine.  It raised so many questions for their family, and abortion was on the table because it had to be.  My friend was the breadwinner, but would they have to quit their job and leave the family with no income & no insurance? They had lost a ton of weight - how was this going to impact their health?  What would happen if their mental health got worse and the unthinkable happened, leaving their husband a widower to raise their son alone?  How long could they delay making a decision?

Ultimately, my friend chose (CHOSE) to keep going, relied heavily on their team of medical professionals, took a bunch of unpaid time off, got fussed over every day by their husband, and delivered a healthy daughter (the whole pregnancy experience totaled 83k!! hurrah American healthcare.) They had a very bad bout with postpartum depression too, but are doing much better now.  They and their husband are discussing whether to try for child#3, going in now knowing what could happen.

My friend's story is a happy one.  They had excellent health insurance, trusted doctors, a loving spouse, supportive family & job, high income + savings cushion, a healthy child, everything a pregnant person needs to be supported in their pregnancy.  Many people don't have all of those things, or even most of them.  And yet, it was a close thing.  They chose to share all this very private info with their friends (and I don't think they'll mind me using their story now), but many people would never disclose anything so personal. 

One more thing - you're focused on late term pregnancy & abortion, and questions of viability.  I would say that for the vast majority of pregnancies where they're at that point, the pregnancy is very much wanted and the abortion is heartrending for people who are ready and hoping to be parents.  Pregnant people don't go 7 months and then decide on a whim that they feel like undergoing invasive surgery, paying 10k+, and driving/flying out to a specialized clinic that's behind bulletproof glass for funsies. Again, these kinds of decisions can only be made between the pregnant person and their medical professionals.  We, the strangers peering through the windows of their lives, don't have a clue.

Thank you for sharing that story, its insightful.

And i want to clear up my view a little as we have a forum of folks who 99% agree on things and 1% who represent the "dark side, evil repulicans" - im joking of course.

In the case you laid out, i personally wouldnt want the government stepping in and stopping your friend from terminating the pregnancy. I really dont know ROE case law but someone up thread broke it down well and that is helpful. States essentially regulate 2/3 trimester. the state of VA attempted to make the regulation say: abortions up to day of delivery if the mental safety of mom is in question.

Trust me when i say i dont think anyone would just up and get an abortion on a whim. maybe thats possible but so rare not worthy of discussion.

I do believe we as a society have an equal if not higher obligation to that baby at some point along in the pregnancy. Its not at 1 month or 2. But at 8 to 9 months i feel our societal obligation to the kid is level with the birthing person. Its level the day after the kid is born why not weeks or days before?

When a kid is in an unstable unsafe home with a parent who is... whats the polite word for nuts/crazy? that kid is taken away and brought to foster care, hopefully. This should be no different. If the birthing person is unfit psychologically to continue the pregnancy safely, take the kid via c section and get that kid out of the house. No different than what the department of child services would do now with an unfit mother or father.

There are evil doctors out there that mentally ill people might seek out. See: gosnell.

I think we owe it to the kid to find a solution other than termination at that late stage.

Since like you said tone doesn't translate well on the internet - im laughing to myself when i say birthing person. Its mom, and or  women. ;)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #96 on: September 03, 2021, 04:38:15 PM »
How come right to life people have no issues trusting trained medical professionals to make fine determinations on a whole host of medical decisions, EXCEPT in this case? There is a whole field of medical ethics, maybe look it the fuck up?

Have you paid attention to the latest pandemic? I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. I would say that anti-intellectualism is rife in the USA.

you know, I was thinking that when I posted that. At the very least, these people are typically not spending lots of time passing legislation from preventing medical professionals from doing their jobs. Mostly protests random attacks on people enforcing mask usage, threats to public officials, occasional zip tying of school officials.

Mostly.

things are worse than I thought. That is a terrible ruling!

Can of worms here maybe, but why was that a terrible ruling?  The wife was prescribed a treatment by one doctor, and another doctor refused to administer the treatment . . . so the judge said that the families wishes should be respected.

There is a fair amount of preliminary evidence supporting use of ivermectin for treatment of covid - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485,

We know an awful lot about safe dosing of the drug, contraindications, toxicity, and adverse effects effects since it has been used on people for quite a while.  More studies certainly need to be done on the drug for certainty, but if a guy is dying on a ventilator and he and the family want to use it and they were prescribed it by a doctor . . . what exactly is the concern with giving the drug?

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #97 on: September 03, 2021, 04:44:21 PM »
Can of worms here maybe, but why was that a terrible ruling?  The wife was prescribed a treatment by one doctor, and another doctor refused to administer the treatment . . . so the judge said that the families wishes should be respected.

I'm not a lawyer or a medical ethicist, but the doctor actually administering the treatment is bound by both ethical rules as well as liable for any resulting malpractice suit (normally). I have gotten different opinions on different black box warning medication from different doctors. That is their right as professionals doing their best to honor their ethical and legal commitments. Having a judge jump in is at the very least atypical.

EDIT - see also "doctor shopping." Just because one doctor is willing to prescribe me dangerous opioids and steroids doesn't mean I should be able to force another doctor to administer them under court order. That's weird.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 04:51:27 PM by PDXTabs »

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #98 on: September 03, 2021, 05:16:46 PM »
How come right to life people have no issues trusting trained medical professionals to make fine determinations on a whole host of medical decisions, EXCEPT in this case? There is a whole field of medical ethics, maybe look it the fuck up?

Have you paid attention to the latest pandemic? I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. I would say that anti-intellectualism is rife in the USA.

you know, I was thinking that when I posted that. At the very least, these people are typically not spending lots of time passing legislation from preventing medical professionals from doing their jobs. Mostly protests random attacks on people enforcing mask usage, threats to public officials, occasional zip tying of school officials.

Mostly.

things are worse than I thought. That is a terrible ruling!

Can of worms here maybe, but why was that a terrible ruling?  The wife was prescribed a treatment by one doctor, and another doctor refused to administer the treatment . . . so the judge said that the families wishes should be respected.

There is a fair amount of preliminary evidence supporting use of ivermectin for treatment of covid - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485,

We know an awful lot about safe dosing of the drug, contraindications, toxicity, and adverse effects effects since it has been used on people for quite a while.  More studies certainly need to be done on the drug for certainty, but if a guy is dying on a ventilator and he and the family want to use it and they were prescribed it by a doctor . . . what exactly is the concern with giving the drug?

There is no credible evidence for ivermectin to work in COVID.
The MedPage article has a disclaimer on top as one of the studies included in the metaanalysis has been withdrawn as of July 16, 2021, for probable scientific misconduct.
A revised version of the metaanalysis will soon be released.
This is old news.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2021, 05:23:39 PM by PeteD01 »

OzzieandHarriet

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: New laws in Texas: welcome back to the Wild West
« Reply #99 on: September 03, 2021, 05:40:15 PM »
Just putting this out there (may be pay-walled):

My Grandmother’s Desperate Choice
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/my-grandmothers-desperate-choice

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!