[RD] Abortion, once again

[Ajidica]

Are you actually paying the least bit of attention to how these laws are actually playing out or

That isn't in any way a response to what I said, and frankly what I said has little to do with how the recent batch of anti-abortion laws are written to try and make early term abortion as difficult as possible.

 

[Lexicus]

That isn't in any way a response to what I said, and frankly what I said has little to do with how the recent batch of anti-abortion laws are written to try and make early term abortion as difficult as possible.

It absolutely has everything to do with what you're saying because medically necessary abortions including late-term abortions are being denied as we speak in all these states.

Your argument is divorced from reality, it's about "logic", but my objection to these laws is not based on (eta: this sort of*) abstract philosophical grounds, it is based on the fact that all the laws criminalizing abortion at any stage are actually being used to torture and kill women for the crime of pregnancy loss, or to inflict emotional torture on women by "investigating" their lost pregnancies as potential homicides.

 

[Ajidica]

It absolutely has everything to do with what you're saying because medically necessary abortions including late-term abortions are being denied as we speak in all these states.

Your argument is divorced from reality, it's about "logic", but my objection to these laws is not based on (eta: this sort of*) abstract philosophical grounds, it is based on the fact that all the laws criminalizing abortion at any stage are actually being used to torture and kill women for the crime of pregnancy loss, or to inflict emotional torture on women by "investigating" their lost pregnancies as potential homicides.

Would it help if I say I think the sort of laws passed by Texas et al are clear examples of "cruelty is the point" and we can skip past the silliness where you arguing against something I never said?

 

[Gorbles]

Would it help if I say I think the sort of laws passed by Texas et al are clear examples of "cruelty is the point" and we can skip past the silliness where you arguing against something I never said?

So what did you actually say? Because it read like you were claiming Lexi was arguing for the legal possibility of "non-medical late term abortions", which is a made-up fiction by the anti-abortion crowd.

If all you have to say to anyone replying is "I didn't say that", maybe it would be useful to explain precisely what you did mean?

 

[Farm Boy]

You haven't dug into Illinois state law then. Unless it's just magical thinking.

The relevant detail would be that social and financial anxiety are qualifiers.

 

[Gorbles]

Sorry, let me clarify for the "have you heard about this thing I'm not going to provide any links or evidential context for" crowd.

Non-medical abortions beyond the first trimester may technically exist, or even the legal space for such a thing may exist, but there are generally always reasons that if such cases make it to the media that are obscured or otherwise omitted for the sake of "vote for us we'll stop this horror", and these individual cases are then also massively exaggerated to suggest a Problem that in turn needs its own legislation that always weirdly seems to hurt women more than it saves any theoretical lives.

There's No Such Thing as 'Late-Term Abortion'

Doctors explain why 'late-term abortion' is not a medically recognized term and the truth about abortion care later in pregnancy.

www.parents.com

The abortion myths Republicans are recycling to reframe a losing issue

Anti-abortion activists lost every referendum on the issue in 2022 and the right is scrambling to find a way to talk about a political hot potato

www.theguardian.com

 

[Samson]

You haven't dug into Illinois state law then. Unless it's just magical thinking.

From a quick google:

Illinois Abortion Laws

When Is Abortion Legal?

Abortion is legal in Illinois through fetal viability. Thereafter, abortion is legal only if the health care professional finds that the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient.

Perhaps some more details?

 

[Gorbles]

From a quick google:

Illinois Abortion Laws

When Is Abortion Legal?

Abortion is legal in Illinois through fetal viability. Thereafter, abortion is legal only if the health care professional finds that the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient.

Perhaps some more details?

He edited in some context but once again provided no actual details that could be discussed. I forgot he was probably replying to Ajidica, not me, but hey, I like my post regardless.

 

[Farm Boy]

From a quick google:

Illinois Abortion Laws

When Is Abortion Legal?

Abortion is legal in Illinois through fetal viability. Thereafter, abortion is legal only if the health care professional finds that the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient.

Perhaps some more details?

Those are health concerns.

 

[Gorbles]

Are we supposed to just nod and agree when it is inferred that said concerns aren't valid enough to be treated as concerns? That is the gist here, right? That's what you are getting at - incredibly obtusely, as per the usual. Right?

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't read anyways, so you'll either research it, listen to the people that deal with the foster system in the state talked about, or more likely neither.

 

[Lexicus]

Would it help if I say I think the sort of laws passed by Texas et al are clear examples of "cruelty is the point" and we can skip past the silliness where you arguing against something I never said?

Let me remind you that you began this exchange by pointing out an apparent logical contradiction in that I oppose laws banning late-term abortion for non-medical reasons while also insisting that medically-unnecessary late-term abortions do not happen. I am simply explaining why I actually oppose those laws. I oppose those laws not because I secretly think it's funny that a woman might get pregnant and then deliberately wait until the third trimester to abort the baby for the evulz, but, as I said, because these laws are in fact simply used to inflict physical and emotional torture on women.

Now, to address Farm Boy's point, it may be true that there is a subset of second, maybe even third-trimester abortions that aren't strictly medically necessary. I posit that these abortions generally are the result of other policy priorities of the antiabortion religious right being enacted:

-a lack of sexual education leading to what should be considered shocking ignorance by women of how their own bodies work

-"family values" that encourage women to be economically and physically dependent on men, such that a pregnant woman may be left without any means of financial support if, for example, her abusive husband is arrested for assaulting her

-an at-will employment law regime that allows employers to discriminate against pregnant women openly, coupled with drastically insufficient social support for parents in general (which also ties back into the family values crowd believing that welfare encourages divorce and single motherhood etc).

 

[Gorbles]

You don't read anyways, so you'll either research it, listen to the people that deal with the foster system in the state talked about, or more likely neither.

For a guy who gets upset about people allegedly misrepresenting your opinions, you sure are happy to misrepresent others.

I've read everything so far, and even provided links around the boogeyman of "late term" abortions. If you want to skip out, feel free. You're under no obligation.

 

[Farm Boy]

The law makes data collection harder.

Edit: but for those looking for the meat, much of it comes in redefinition of terms. Viability becomes "without application of extraordinary medical measures" instead of "with or without artificial support" and patient's health becomes "including, but not limited to, physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and age." The application of which seems to be interpreted to consider financial and social strain of raising a child. Which is literally every child at every stage in all ages. That's just how they wrote it. Then they punted it to the doctors, forbid much data collection, and picked up the line "it never happens so no, you aren't really allowed to know, there is no point. Discussion over." There's still a federal ban on partial birth abortions.

 

[Gorbles]

Which is literally every child at every stage in all ages.

You do understand that "abortion" is a "pre-birth" thing, though? So by definition, we're not talking about "in all ages".

 

[Farm Boy]

Inclusive, it is.

 

[Gorbles]

Now we're talking about a redefinition of terms.

 

[Farm Boy]

They all had that stage.

Contrivance does not withstand.

 

[Remorseless1]

My viewpoint is simple: what a woman does with her body is nobody else's business. Period. Full stop.

It also applies to sexual orientation or transgender medical treatments. Government has no valid reason to be involved in any way in such intensely personal decisions. These personal decisions do not anyone else. The idea expressed by Jefferson still applies -- my rights end where yours begin.

For those invoking a religious opposition to these rights, I suggest they leave that up to the deity they chose. And morality? Again, a personal choice.

 

[Arwon]

For someone who asserts non-medical late term abortions don't actually happen, you spend a lot of time arguing for the law to allow it.

Nearly all abortions after like 10 weeks are surgical, not medical, so I'm not sure what this is trying to say