Josiah and Lauren Part 11: The Baby Watch Continues

[SapphireSlytherin]

18 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

But it is hardly some hard right, anti- abortion rally position to be against elective abortion near or past viability. 

I'm reasonably sure that in the course of this discussion, it's been proven that late-term abortion is by-and-large performed when a fetus is non-viable and/or the mother's life is in danger. I'm pretttttty sure most women would not "choose" to have an abortion at the point of viability.

But again - what matters is:  it's the woman's business. Alone. Period. Nobody has any right whatsofuckingever to tell a woman what she can and can't do. You can disagree with me all you want, but that's the damn reality. 

[Irishy]

31 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

It is interesting to me that so many posters are arguing so vehemently in favor of abortion availability at any point in pregnancy, for any reason when that is so clearly out of step with the laws of the EU and UK, and ...well.. everywhere 

 

I don’t think anyone is in favour of abortion, or could be described as pro-abortion. Late term abortion is a tragedy and an agonising choice for that mother. It is also none of mine or your business why a woman would feel compelled to make that choice. 

What many posters ARE in favour of, is keeping the church and government’s noses (and yours and mine) out of women’s healthcare. 

Respect women. Trust women. Stop judging them and enabling the patriarchy in the process.

[Mama Mia]

11 minutes ago, Irishy said:

I don’t think anyone is in favour of abortion, or could be described as pro-abortion. Late term abortion is a tragedy and an agonising choice for that mother. It is also none of mine or your business why a woman would feel compelled to make that choice. 

What many posters ARE in favour of, is keeping the church and government’s noses (and yours and mine) out of women’s healthcare. 

Respect women. Trust women. Stop judging them and enabling the patriarchy in the process.

Ok. I’ll change the wording. I am against elective abortion, for non medical reasons, being legally available at the point of viability. Period.

19 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

I'm reasonably sure that in the course of this discussion, it's been proven that late-term abortion is by-and-large performed when a fetus is non-viable and/or the mother's life is in danger. I'm pretttttty sure most women would not "choose" to have an abortion at the point of viability.

But again - what matters is:  it's the woman's business. Alone. Period. Nobody has any right whatsofuckingever to tell a woman what she can and can't do. You can disagree with me all you want, but that's the damn reality. 

And I’ve stated, repeatedly, that I agree, it is rare that abortions past viability for any non-medical reason are extremely rare. Extremely. They do happen though. We have nuanced restrictions on damn near every area of our lives that impacts other people. At the point of viability the action of termination quite obviously impacts another person. 

[Irishy]

@Mama Mia what exactly do you mean by ‘against’? Do you mean you are uncomfortable with it and would not choose it for yourself? Or do you mean that you would actively seek to prevent other women from accessing abortion care post viability by voting against it? 

[artdecades]

43 minutes ago, Irishy said:

I don’t think anyone is in favour of abortion, or could be described as pro-abortion. Late term abortion is a tragedy and an agonising choice for that mother. It is also none of mine or your business why a woman would feel compelled to make that choice. 

What many posters ARE in favour of, is keeping the church and government’s noses (and yours and mine) out of women’s healthcare. 

Respect women. Trust women. Stop judging them and enabling the patriarchy in the process.

I am 100 percent in favor of abortion if that is the best thing for the woman making that choice. I don't think abortion is inherently tragic or a bad thing so I don't see a problem with being "pro-abortion" if that is the choice the woman wants to make.

[Mama Mia]

7 minutes ago, Irishy said:

@Mama Mia what exactly do you mean by ‘against’? Do you mean you are uncomfortable with it and would not choose it for yourself? Or do you mean that you would actively seek to prevent other women from accessing abortion care post viability by voting against it? 

That’s a complicated question, as, at least in my state, or federally, this would only come up as part of a candidates overall platform. And as it is far, far, far  from the highest priority issue in deciding my vote - I can’t imagine a scenario where I am choosing Candidate A because he supports late term abortion restrictions and also is pro-immigration protections, anti-military adventurism, pro universal health care etc etc..... they just don’t go together. so the other issues are going to gain my vote. 

Otherwise, yes, I am for preventing other women, through regulation, from obtaining abortions post-viability for non-medical reasons. 

 

[Irishy]

8 minutes ago, artdecades said:

I am 100 percent in favor of abortion if that is the best thing for the woman making that choice. I don't think abortion is inherently tragic or a bad thing so I don't see a problem with being "pro-abortion" if that is the choice the woman wants to make.

You are right. I just meant that late term abortion is usually a much wanted pregnancy and inherently tragic. Even the termination of an unwanted late term pregnancy will likely present the mother with some amount of grief and agonising. 

But you are right, so called abortion regret is a construct of the anti choice brigade and society in general. 

[Irishy]

19 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Otherwise, yes, I am for preventing other women, through regulation, from obtaining abortions post-viability for non-medical reasons. 

 

I think it’s really sad that you would feel the need to control women like this. Because that’s essentially what this is. Controlling women. 

Non medical reasons can often be very compelling. Domestic violence, substance abuse, extremely dysfunctional family environment, mental health issues, substance misuse etc. 

Banning late term abortion will not end late term abortion. It will just restrict access to safe legal late term abortion. Women will die. 

[Mama Mia]

1 minute ago, Irishy said:

I think it’s really sad that you would feel the need to control women like this. Because that’s essentially what this is. Controlling women. 

Non medical reasons can often be very compelling. Domestic violence, substance abuse, extremely dysfunctional family environment, mental health issues, substance misuse etc. 

Banning late term abortion will not end late term abortion. It will just restrict access to safe legal late term abortion. Women will die. 

Women, people, are “controlled” every day, in a huge number of interactions. I am absolutely mind boggled that this is the one instance on the planet where there should be zero regulation. 

[Irishy]

@Mama Mia the right of a woman to bodily autonomy will always supersede the right to life of a fetus for me. No matter what my personal feelings may be. That’s the bottom line. 

[Meggo]

23 hours ago, artdecades said:

Just wondering, who do you expect to pay the insanely high NICU costs to keep that 24 week old delivered baby alive.

Not to mention ALLLLLLL the work afterwards. 

My son was 31weeks 5 days and born perfectly healthy but WAY too early. So he has some vision issues, some gross motor delays, some fine motor delays, speech delay, sensory processing delay (still working on figuring that one out). 
On the surface he's a perfectly lovable 5 year old but he has his underlying challenges. And while I feel like I'm able to handle all of that - not everyone WANTS to. 

And in our case - Mom didn't know she was pregnant till she was at about 23 weeks. I can't even FATHOM the struggles my boy would have being born at 23 weeks. 

[lexiloumarie]

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

That’s a complicated question, as, at least in my state, or federally, this would only come up as part of a candidates overall platform. And as it is far, far, far  from the highest priority issue in deciding my vote - I can’t imagine a scenario where I am choosing Candidate A because he supports late term abortion restrictions and also is pro-immigration protections, anti-military adventurism, pro universal health care etc etc..... they just don’t go together. so the other issues are going to gain my vote. 

Otherwise, yes, I am for preventing other women, through regulation, from obtaining abortions post-viability for non-medical reasons. 

 

I would urge you to read the story of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland to see that when conditions are placed on abortion, you immediately put womens' lives at risk. Putting regulations that come between a doctor and a patient, and their ability to properly diagnosis will risk innoncent lives. By the time an appropriate medical condition has arrisen to satisfy whatever bureaucracy is in place, women will die. It's already happened, it's not speculation or an idle fear. 

[Maggie Mae]

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

There is no other situation that is equivalent, so that argument makes no sense. 

It's equivalent to ANY and ALL medical conditions. Women are in control of their own bodies. No other person can take organs or even blood from another person, for any reason, without permission.  Pregnancy is a medical condition. There is NO reason why we should allow anyone other than the woman to make medical decisions regarding her body. How do you not understand that? You want to make a fetus into a person? Then the fetus needs to be held to the same standards - he/she/they are prohibited, by law,  from taking body parts from another person. Period. End of story. 

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

Women, people, are “controlled” every day, in a huge number of interactions. I am absolutely mind boggled that this is the one instance on the planet where there should be zero regulation. 

I'm mind boggled that you think so little of women that you would place the life of a potential human above theirs. 

[Maggie Mae]

2 hours ago, Irishy said:

I don’t think anyone is in favour of abortion, or could be described as pro-abortion. Late term abortion is a tragedy and an agonising choice for that mother. It is also none of mine or your business why a woman would feel compelled to make that choice. 

I'm pro-abortion in the sense that I am also "pro-vaccination" or "pro-chemo." It's the best solution at this time to treat a manageable health condition and increase the quality of one's life. I'm also "pro-elective surgeries" because people can do what they want with their own bodies.  (And also, I want women who have to have abortions that they don't want but are medically necessary to be able to find a doctor who has performed the surgery before. Restrictions kill women. )

[Mama Mia]

34 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

It's equivalent to ANY and ALL medical conditions. Women are in control of their own bodies. No other person can take organs or even blood from another person, for any reason, without permission.  Pregnancy is a medical condition. There is NO reason why we should allow anyone other than the woman to make medical decisions regarding her body. How do you not understand that? You want to make a fetus into a person? Then the fetus needs to be held to the same standards - he/she/they are prohibited, by law,  from taking body parts from another person. Period. End of story. 

I'm mind boggled that you think so little of women that you would place the life of a potential human above theirs. 

Well once blood or kidneys become sentient beings, get back to me. 

[Maggie Mae]

8 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Well once blood or kidneys become sentient beings, get back to me. 

IF the fetus is a person, then the fetus is prevented by law from taking blood or organs from anyone else. Yes, even to live. 

You are being purposefully obtuse, probably because you think a fetus (a potential male) is more important than a woman. (who is living, breathing, and has a legal right to her own body and what happens to it.) 

[karen77]

1 minute ago, Maggie Mae said:

IF the fetus is a person, then the fetus is prevented by law from taking blood or organs from anyone else. Yes, even to live. 

You are being purposefully obtuse, probably because you think a fetus (a potential male) is more important than a woman. (who is living, breathing, and has a legal right to her own body and what happens to it.) 

That is an interesting perspective on it. 

[Mama Mia]

2 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

IF the fetus is a person, then the fetus is prevented by law from taking blood or organs from anyone else. Yes, even to live. 

You are being purposefully obtuse, probably because you think a fetus (a potential male) is more important than a woman. (who is living, breathing, and has a legal right to her own body and what happens to it.) 

So induce labor. And FYI, the fetus actually has a much, much better chance of survival if female.

[SorenaJ]

8 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

So induce labor. And FYI, the fetus actually has a much, much better chance of survival if female.

Not if the person carrying the baby is from a culture where boys are preferred and finds out the sex and aborts the fetus. 

[Georgiana]

15 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

So induce labor. And FYI, the fetus actually has a much, much better chance of survival if female.

Beyond a certain point, that's generally how it's done to a large extent because it's the safest method.  But often, inducing labor for a fetus not developmentally ready to undergo labor will result in the death of the fetus anyway.  So it's really 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other.  

Often, the only option for SAVING the fetus would be to force the mother to undergo a c-section, which is major abdominal surgery and in many cases has much higher risks for the mother.  Would you force her to undergo surgery that is medically unnecessary for her in order to save the fetus?  And even still the fetus likely does not stand a good chance of surviving outside the mother.  So should she be forced to endure unnecessary damage and risk to her own body in favor of a POTENTIAL human who has a terrible chance of survival?  Or should we not favor the bodily autonomy of the actual human who has a great chance of survival and err on the side of reducing the risk to her?

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, lexiloumarie said:

I would urge you to read the story of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland to see that when conditions are placed on abortion, you immediately put womens' lives at risk. Putting regulations that come between a doctor and a patient, and their ability to properly diagnosis will risk innoncent lives. By the time an appropriate medical condition has arrisen to satisfy whatever bureaucracy is in place, women will die. It's already happened, it's not speculation or an idle fear. 

That was a tragic circumstance. And she was absolutely failed by the system. There is absolutely zero reason you couldn’t have regulations in place that allow for immediate action in an emergency. None. 

It is fascinating that people are so riled up about regulation of a procedure that is extremely rare and already not available in the vast, vast majority of states, provinces or countries. You are saying both that women never have an elective late -term termination  AND that the lack of access to them is killing women. Which is it? 

Instead of the sacred patient / doctor relationship and right to elective surgery - You’d think you’d be more concerned that the 3rd leading cause of death is in the US is medical error. Causing 250,000 deaths a year. Every year. Presumably at least half of those are women. 

[Georgiana]

Just now, Mama Mia said:

Instead of the sacred patient / doctor relationship and right to elective surgery - You’d think you’d be more concerned that the 3rd leading cause of death is in the US is medical error. Causing 250,000 deaths a year. Every year. Presumably at least half of those are women. 

I'm also concerned about heart disease and obesity.  When our legislative bodies try to pass laws that restrict medical autonomy for those experiencing heart disease and obesity, let me know.  I'll oppose them too.  

But we are talking about THIS medical issue right now, and THIS medical issue is one of the very few in this country where there are laws restricting access to appropriate and effective care options.  That's not the case for other issues like heart disease, obesity, and medical error.  And it's especially concerning because this is an issue that impacts a single sex and a vulnerable group.  

Someone dying because of a mistake is tragic.  But someone dying when they could have been saved easily but were PREVENTED from obtaining the care they needed safely is a completely different case.  And it begs the question, in a way human error does not, of WHY they were prevented by an outside force from saving their own life when they had the opportunity to do so.  That's a massive ethical question, and while not wholly unique to this situation, it does not apply to other cases like medical error.  

[caitrona]

4 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

That was a tragic circumstance. And she was absolutely failed by the system. There is absolutely zero reason you couldn’t have regulations in place that allow for immediate action in an emergency. None. 

It is fascinating that people are so riled up about regulation of a procedure that is extremely rare and already not available in the vast, vast majority of states, provinces or countries. You are saying both that women never have an elective late -term termination  AND that the lack of access to them is killing women. Which is it? 

Instead of the sacred patient / doctor relationship and right to elective surgery - You’d think you’d be more concerned that the 3rd leading cause of death is in the US is medical error. Causing 250,000 deaths a year. Every year. Presumably at least half of those are women. 

How do you have regulations in place for every possible circumstance, though? Who determines what's an "emergency"? What if doctors disagree? 

There's no way a regulation can be written and implemented that  allows for every circumstance that might arise where *you* (or those writing it) would be OK with allowing a woman access to her needed procedure without making her or her doctors jump through hoops to prove it's "necessary".  That takes doctors' attention away from patient care, places a burden on the woman who may be in the midst of a medical emergency, and bogs down the court or administrative system that has to process the exceptions.  Then you get to who bears the cost of proving the need? Is there an appeals process? What is the consequence if it's determined "unnecessary" and the woman obtains an abortion, self-induces, or loses the pregnancy later on? 

You can not like a medical procedure as much as you want. But seeking to legally restrict it has far reaching consequences and costs that don't always outweigh the good feelings you get from saying "I think this is bad, so no one should be able to get it unless they prove to me that it isn't as icky."   

[Maggie Mae]

25 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

 Instead of the sacred patient / doctor relationship and right to elective surgery.

Well fuck me for thinking that me and my doctor have knowledge about my body, my rights and needs. OBVIOUSLY some politician who has never met me, probably doesn't have a medical degree, and lives on the other side of the country knows more about what is medically necessary for me. (Mental health is health.)

[AtlanticTug]

10 hours ago, SuperNova said:

 

When talking about the right to a safe, legal abortion what we are really discussing is the rights of poor and disenfranchised women. There will always be access to safe abortions for women of means. If an upper middle class woman wants to terminate and its not performed in her area, she can travel to the next state or even another country to have a safe procedure. A ban on abortion is an inconvenience, not a barrier. Please understand that I'm not attempting to minimize the stress or weight of her situation, I'm just illustrating that there are no solid barriers when there's money. 

 

This is the stance that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has taken over and over again and spoken about at length. The fact is that abortion is a settled issue for women of means. Outside of some kind of actual Gilead/Handmaid's Tale world, abortion will NEVER again be unavailable to women who have money. That ship has sailed. What we're arguing about is whether poor women should have that same right/ability.