Killing babies at 9 months

[DQ12]

SCOTUS isn't going to put on their Dr. hats and try to define some sort of medical protocol. Lol.

And you know what?  I don't have any conceptual problem with them staying away from that. 

But if that's the case, they should have just permitted abortions carte blanch, regardless of health.  Instead, they split the baby (so to speak), nominally forbidding abortions in some circumstances, without actually doing so, by specifically requiring that "health" be "threatened" -- which is a standard so broad and discretionary that the requirement is effectively meaningless and completely unpredictable.

[steve dave]

Yes Or No:

-40% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.

-80% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.

-10% chance of death.

-100% chance of not being able to conceive again.

-100% chance the fetus does not survive birth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My personal opinions on the issue aside, I think any/all of those would be proper standards.

I just think it's a bad legislative practice to (1) impose a vague standard and (2) cede virtually complete discretion on that vague standard.

So exactly what kind of box are you suggesting non-medical doctors draw around this? It’s as non-vague as it can be imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

Yes Or No:

-40% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.

-80% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.

-10% chance of death.

-100% chance of not being able to conceive again.

-100% chance the fetus does not survive birth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My personal opinions on the issue aside, I think any/all of those would be proper standards.

I just think it's a bad legislative practice to (1) impose a vague standard and (2) cede virtually complete discretion on that vague standard.

So exactly what kind of box are you suggesting non-medical doctors draw around this? It’s as non-vague as it can be imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not even sure what you mean.  If you can't imagine a more specific standard than "threat to health" then i don't know what to tell you.  Does the threat have to be "serious" or does any threat qualify?  Does the threatened condition have to be permanent or can it be fleeting?  How likely or remote does the threat have to be?  Conceptually, it doesn't matter to me which way the legislature sides on any of the above questions, but more instruction from the law itself would go a long way in telling doctors, women seeking abortions, and the rest of us what the law actually is.  For example, the Virginia bill that just passed replaced a previous one that required that the mother's life or health be "substantially and irredeemably" harmed.  Still not exactly precise, but at least we know that the threat has to be serious and permanent. 

As it stands though, we're left to kind of a guess what a particular physician's personal definition of "threat to health is" -- and when there's that much discretion on a standard that the doc is supposed to consider, it's pretty hard to ever be considered wrong either way.  Which should be troubling to people on both sides of this issue for obvious reasons.

I just think that if laws are going to impose standards then they should be well-defined. 

[steve dave]

I’m asking what you think the box should be. You say you believe all items I listed should qualify and I’m trying to figure out what wouldn’t qualify and what you believe a judicial system and not a doctor should detail that as.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve dave]

Like, you don’t have to but I think what I’d like is a list of items that would and wouldn’t qualify  (in your opinion).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[treysolid]

Like for instance, what if the risks sd listed before were changed to this?

Yes Or No:

-25% chance of paralyzation from the waste down.

-50% chance of permanent 6/10 abdominal pain for the rest of your life.

-5% chance of death.

-65% chance of not being able to conceive again.

-90% chance the fetus does not survive birth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[treysolid]

I don't think it's proper for politicians to decide that terminating a pregnancy because there is a 33% chance the mother suffers a stroke is illegal but not illegal when that risk rises to 50%, especially when these risks are only based on a doctors best estimate

[catastrophe]

Yeah a percentage cutoff is always gonna be arbitrary (and bad policy to require doctors to assign percentage risks when it’s just tied to subjective impressions anyway). Either base it off specific diagnostic codes or on whether a doctor determines certain severe conditions are likely to result without an abortion.

[Spracne]

Yeah a percentage cutoff is always gonna be arbitrary (and bad policy to require doctors to assign percentage risks when it’s just tied to subjective impressions anyway). Either base it off specific diagnostic codes or on whether a doctor determines certain severe conditions are likely to result without an abortion.

So, you want a court (or congress) to promulgate an exclusive list of health risks that are deemed acceptable?

[catastrophe]

Nah that was a SD straw man.  You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route. 

I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.

I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.

Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable.  But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.

[treysolid]

Nah that was a SD straw man.  You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route. 

I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.

I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.

Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable.  But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.

You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.

[Phil Titola]

I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out

[DQ12]

I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out

Yes.  The two issues are perfectly analogous.   

[catastrophe]

Nah that was a SD straw man.  You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route. 

I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.

I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.

Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable.  But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.

You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.

How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.

[420seriouscat69]

I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out

Yes.  The two issues are perfectly analogous.   

[treysolid]

Nah that was a SD straw man.  You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route. 

I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.

I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.

Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable.  But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.

You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.

How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.

Is it still worth it for those children if their mothers die during labor?

[Phil Titola]

I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out

Yes.  The two issues are perfectly analogous.   

Coathangers and caravans of brown people scary stories

[catastrophe]

Nah that was a SD straw man.  You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route. 

I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.

I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.

Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable.  But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.

You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.

How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.

Is it still worth it for those children if their mothers die during labor?

If they were just as likely to die from an abortion yeah I think so.

[420seriouscat69]

I see why pro life people are often wall people. They build up these fantastical stories in their mind an fresh themselves out

Yes.  The two issues are perfectly analogous.   

Coathangers and caravans of brown people scary stories

If you keep making things up in your head, they must be true.

[treysolid]

Nah that was a SD straw man.  You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route. 

I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.

I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.

Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable.  But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.

You don't think that this is something doctors already take into consideration in their decision-making process? You make it sound like doctors are looking for every excuse they can to perform an abortion.

How am I making it sound that way? I’ve already said that I think the vast majority of late term mothers in these situations will seek to do everything possible to save their babies. But again, the stakes are high. And even if it’s a measure that ends up saving a dozen children a year it’s still worth it IMO.

Is it still worth it for those children if their mothers die during labor?

If they were just as likely to die from an abortion yeah I think so.

What you're saying flies in the face of established medical practice. The reason why abortions are performed in these circumstances (when doctors deem it necessary) is because doing so almost always re-establishes the status quo. That is, the woman comes away from her pregnancy pretty much the same as she was prior to it. Going through with a risky pregnancy where the mothers health is significantly impaired is a net negative outcome, because not only does she suffer medical consequences, but those consequences most likely have a negative impact on her ability to care for her child. Performing abortions in situations like this is the definition of caution.

Also, with the part of your post that I bolded up above, it's still up to the doctors discretion to determine if those two outcomes are equal. Which is what I've been arguing for this entire time. Ultimately, the doctor has to make a difficult judgement call and we shouldn't be trying to legislate that.

[catastrophe]

I think we're on the same page that the law is always going to have to allow for doctors to exercise their professional judgment.  What I am saying is that most (all?) states' laws right now only require the doctor to consider the health of the mother (i.e., if she's above this risk line you can perform an abortion, below the line you can't).  With the science we already have (which continues to get better), doctors are fully capable of exercising their judgment to take the health of the unborn child into account as well.  They simply are being told to ignore that under the current laws, which is the main thing that I think should change.

And keep in mind so far I've just been focusing on late term abortion, which will still require some method of removing the baby after it is killed.  There's really no complete going back to the status quo at that point.

I have my own opinions on abortions before viability, but that's more complicated to debate on a policy level since it ultimately comes down to a pure ethical question with no clearly defined societal norms to ground it in.

[sonofdaxjones]

Has the infanticide supporting ultra racist VA gub resigned yet?

[Spracne]

Nah that was a SD straw man.  You could base it off diagnostic codes if you wanted the certainty he was seeking, but I don't think that's the best route. 

I've already expressed my preference ITT: (1) non-viable fetuses get no protection; (2) if a doctor determines that carrying a viable fetus to term would likely cause death or permanent disability to the mother BUT live birth via induction and/or c-section would mitigate that risk as well as abortion would, no abortion; (3) same as #2, except abortion is the only way to avoid the risk, abortion is allowed.

I personally would be pretty comfortable that "likely" causing "permanent disability" gives doctors sufficient wiggle room to use their judgment without providing carte blanche authority to perform late term abortions.

Obviously if you're in the "stay out of people's business" camp, no standard will be palatable.  But if we are already ok with laws against child abuse (don't tell me how to discipline my own kids in my own house blah, blah, blah) I don't feel like it's much of a stretch to talk about treatment of babies who are capable of survival outside of the womb.

As long as you give doctors that discretion, I don't see the end result being much different than the status quo. Will the state actually intrude into these private medical decisions and prosecute doctors when the state disagrees with their medical judgment? Seems dicey.

[catastrophe]

Doctors are used to having their professional judgment questioned in court. I’m not all that worried about it.

[Spracne]

Doctors are used to having their professional judgment questioned in court. I’m not all that worried about it.

Huge difference between a patient bringing a civil claim for malpractice (as I understand you to mean) and the state bringing a criminal charge. How would the state even find out? And what of privilege/confidentiality, if applicable?