Ohio Gov. Kasich Signs 20-Week Abortion Limit

[Simon_Jester]

Alferd, I would strongly recommend NOT picking "the rich oppose abortion in order to decrease social mobility" as the hill you want to die on.

The narrative that the rich specifically support policies with the intent of decreasing social mobility does not seem to be very well supported by evidence in the US, in my opinion. The rich routinely support policies with the intent of diminishing their tax burden, or of promoting an idealized notion of 'hard work and independence,' that have the net effect of decreasing social mobility. But the average American upper class citizen, even the average American millionaire or multimillionaire, is not Hoggish Greedly and doesn't really seem to have have any specific desire to stratify American society as such.

They just can't be bothered to lift a finger to prevent it from happening.

Now, I can see the rich having less incentive than you'd expect to resist abortion bans. Because they're more likely to be able to afford 'medical tourism' that leads them to places where a woman's vagina is not considered government property, be they states that lack abortion bans, or be they other countries that likewise allow it.

But that doesn't actually translate into changing their opinion on whether abortion should, or should not, be legal. It just affects how much effort they put into acting on their opinion.

Just remember- John Kasich is what passes for a sane, ethical Republican in national American politics.

Let that sink in.

He's not the crazy one. What's both insane and unethical is the inability to even comprehend why pro-life people might hold the position they do. If a baby can be born at 21 weeks, 5 days and grow up to be a healthy adult, it is neither insane or unethical to set the date at which a parent can have their healthy child killed on a whim before that date.

Is Governor Kasich prepared to commit the state of Ohio to paying for the massive, intensive, elaborate care required to ensure that a premature baby born at 21.5 weeks survives and grows up healthy?

Because it's damned sure that a lot of Ohioan parents won't be able to pay for it themselves, especially with Trump and the congressional Republicans likely to do their best to nuke Obamacare.

If enough states pass twenty week bans, and enough of them survive legal challenges, then the abortion protection offered by Roe vs. Wade becomes fatally compromised.

Good. Roe vs. Wade shouldn't provide any abortion protection at all, because the logic that justifies the decision is complete nonsense. You want abortion to be legal? Do it properly, instead of building your house on a foundation of bullshit.

Would you mind expanding on your reasoning?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Would you mind expanding on your reasoning?

He likely rejects the notion of either A) the right to privacy, or B) Any sort of medical autonomy or self-ownership. Not sure which.

Neither argument is legally or ethically defensible, but hey! He will certainly try.

As for 21 weeks and 5 days for pre-term births... that is a statistical outlier that is far far outside the medical norm. At 23 weeks, the survival rate if ALL the stops are pulled out is all of 9%. It is not until 25 weeks that the survival rate is even a coin toss. 24 weeks is generally considered the point of viability where the chances are even reasonable.

It is worth noting that the brain is not well-developed at even the point of viability for actual cognition to be taking place. It is not until the third trimester that any sort of cognition starts being possible, and in the womb, it might be notionally possible in the third trimester but not realized because of the low O2 partial pressure. The fetus is basically in low-oxygen induced REM sleep without dreams.

[Broomstick]

I'm not seeing the insanity - if anything this strikes me as a surprisingly effective compromise. Can anyone help me out here?

A compromise between whom, exactly?

Between those who would outlaw abortion entirely and those who would have no limits on it at all.

[Gandalf]

I'm not seeing the insanity - if anything this strikes me as a surprisingly effective compromise. Can anyone help me out here?

A compromise between whom, exactly?

Between those who would outlaw abortion entirely and those who would have no limits on it at all.

Oh, and here I thought something reasonable was about to be said.

[Broomstick]

More reasonable than, say, going to war over the dispute.

Now, it's on you - what would YOU consider logical or rational in this matter?

[Gandalf]

More reasonable than, say, going to war over the dispute.

Going to war? What?

[Tribble]

I'll ask again: what would a reasonable limit on abortion, if anything, be?

20 weeks seems a little early IMO, but should abortion be allowed all the way to 9 months?

[Alyrium Denryle]

More reasonable than, say, going to war over the dispute.

Going to war? What?

You know what she meant (a no-compromise issue that might escalate--even more--to violence).

Now answer her fucking question instead of using selective quotation and mockery to dodge it.

I'll ask again: what would a reasonable limit on abortion, if anything, be?

20 weeks seems a little early IMO, but should abortion be allowed all the way to 9 months?

Twenty weeks is a bit too early, particularly because a lot of defects and other problems can show up in the late second trimester. Birth is too late (unless by "abort" we mean simply to induce labor and put the baby up for adoption immediately, barring cases of late miscarriage or the life of the mother or one of several in a multiple pregnancy).

Week 28. The beginning of the third trimester. Consciousness is notionally possible, survival outside of the womb highly probable, and most major problems have been caught.

[Gandalf]

More reasonable than, say, going to war over the dispute.

Going to war? What?

You know what she meant (a no-compromise issue that might escalate--even more--to violence).

Now answer her fucking question instead of using selective quotation and mockery to dodge it.

Actually, I have no fucking idea what "going to war" meant in this context, because it's in an overused phrase, in a lone sentence that offers no context. Is the war between Kasich and the Democrats in his Republican controlled legislature? The ongoing war between those who believe in bodily autonomy and those who don't for Jesus related reasons?

Also, the reason I quoted on the first half of the post was hoping that once the meaning was ascertained I could better respond to it.

[AniThyng]

I'm not sure I'd this should be it's own thread, but suppose one was pro choice, but wanted moral guidance on what the choice should be - what advice would you offer beyond it's your choice?

[Shroom Man 777]

Ask questions on what quality of life the person could offer the child, if the person is ready for this, their plans, their options, etc.

Therapeutic communications would be not in offering suggestions but offering... angles with which the person him or herself can mull over and think through and contemplate, in going over their own thoughts, their own circumstances, their own perspectives, where they themselves came from and where they think they're heading, where they want to head or whatever, then they can better answer the main question - make the main choice - themselves.

There is an added layer if the person speaks about it to someone who's there, even if that someone is silent. There is more feedback, the person has more "space" to make considerations of what he or she is saying, in that kind of context than if the person were just thinking to him or herself in the shitter. This is why talking to a shrink is important. Ideally the listener can also direct the stream of thought towards constructive ends, if the person speaking ends up in a dead end or whatever, the listener can - with training - latch onto some cue, some potential prospective... route of conversation that the speaker him/herself has provided with previous statements and home into that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm not sure I'd this should be it's own thread, but suppose one was pro choice, but wanted moral guidance on what the choice should be - what advice would you offer beyond it's your choice?

Basically what Shroom just said. I would socratic-method them through their own decision making process. Are they emotionally and financially ready for a kid? If not, can they get that way very soon? If their beliefs are erroneous I will point that out.

I would seek, primarily, to help them make the decision that is best for them under the circumstances, and utilizing whatever seems to be their ethical system of choice (whether they realize they have one or not, everyone does, even if it is usually a bit syncretic)

[Shroom Man 777]

Ask questions that aren't yes/no - I mean someone just responding yes or no means they get an easy way out to avoid providing (sometimes painful/uncomfortable) details that can help them navigate their own courses.

Ask whats, whens, wheres, hows, etc. Things that require contemplation and more-detailed articulation. Don't judge. And don't use "why" because that means... you're asking them for the reason, for the explanation and that somehow linguistically hints towards some kind of judgment and might make them defensive. Whereas questions that ask for detail... but in an enumerative... way, an elaboration rather than an explanation... avoids these defense-mechanisms.

Like "WHY DID YOU DO THIS" sounds bad. It's better to state "WHAT made you do it." The why focuses on them as a person. The word what, on the other hand, dissociates the thing in question from the person being asked.

[Grumman]

Would you mind expanding on your reasoning?

He likely rejects the notion of either A) the right to privacy, or B) Any sort of medical autonomy or self-ownership. Not sure which.

I reject the notion that you have a constitutional right to medical autonomy in the sense you're talking about it. For example, it is not unconstitutional to forbid medicating you with prescription drugs just because you have self-diagnosed yourself as needing them. You mostly have the right to not receive medical treatment, but that's as far as it goes.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Would you mind expanding on your reasoning?

He likely rejects the notion of either A) the right to privacy, or B) Any sort of medical autonomy or self-ownership. Not sure which.

I reject the notion that you have a constitutional right to medical autonomy in the sense you're talking about it. For example, it is not unconstitutional to forbid medicating you with prescription drugs just because you have self-diagnosed yourself as needing them. You mostly have the right to not receive medical treatment, but that's as far as it goes.

Which as an analogy for abortion does not work, because addiction directly harms people other than the addicted person, and is of general public health concern (in addition to being factually incorrect regarding the legal extent of medical privacy). I suppose you also oppose the existence of HIPPA as well?

The question of abortion involves the 1st, 4th, 10th, and 14th amendments. The court in Roe v Wade concluded (extending the logic of earlier decisions concerning birth control) that such fundamental questions regarding the nature of humanity (read: where personhood starts), reproductive decision making etc were of such a personal nature and often involve deeply held religious and philosophical beliefs, that they MUST be left to the individual (the state being secular, and all that). That they were private matters and not an area into which the state could intrude, barring safety concerns (which is why the pro-life movement has been trying to end-run around Roe by regulating abortion clinics "in the name of women's safety")

[Broomstick]

Now, it's on you - what would YOU consider logical or rational in this matter?

Now answer her fucking question instead of using selective quotation and mockery to dodge it.

Gandalf, I'm still waiting for an answer...

Twenty weeks is a bit too early, particularly because a lot of defects and other problems can show up in the late second trimester. Birth is too late (unless by "abort" we mean simply to induce labor and put the baby up for adoption immediately, barring cases of late miscarriage or the life of the mother or one of several in a multiple pregnancy).

Week 28. The beginning of the third trimester. Consciousness is notionally possible, survival outside of the womb highly probable, and most major problems have been caught.

You are never going to come up with an answer that makes everyone happy. There are serious, even lethal birth defects that aren't apparent until after the baby is born.

My personal inclination is allow it up until month 7 (third trimester) and always for the life and significant health risk of the mother.

[Gandalf]

Now, it's on you - what would YOU consider logical or rational in this matter?

Now answer her fucking question instead of using selective quotation and mockery to dodge it.

Gandalf, I'm still waiting for an answer...

Holy shit! BOLD TEXT! Since you ignored my question about what you meant by the first half of your post, effectively denying me a chance to better understand the context of the question, I'll answer it as best as I can. Meaningful dialogue be damned I guess.

I'm not particularly comfortable with any restrictions. If there needed to be any, I'd put them as late as possible, perhaps north of twenty eight weeks, and make them available in any medical facility with the infrastructure. On top of that, no gag rules or anything preventing doctors counselling patients on the subject.

To quote Selina Meyer, "If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM."

Duplicate post deleted - SCRawl

[Flagg]

If the only thing limiting a woman's control of her body is the threat of violence (aka terrorism) then there should be a war.

And why the hate on Gandalf? He asked for clarification and instead was told what he knows and doesn't (so prove he knew what Broomstick was talking about since he can't prove he didn't) and gets his shit jumped on for no reason.

[Shroom Man 777]

I know we're all pretty frayed at this point because all our countries are turning into shitshows (like, I fucking came back here precisely because I needed to talk more and more about the shitshows I'm seeing)... but I think we can still count on a few people who we know, who we've known for a long time, to not-be deranged pod-people cryptofascist goosestepping fuckfaces. I mean, I've seen how Gands rolls so I don't think he's the type to be shitting on Roe vs. Wade or anything.

Don't take this as some insurgent testingstani undermining of mod authority. I am stating this because I *know* we are all - as human beings - really just fatigued at being perpetually battered by a never ending stream of news of shitshow developments. And I know for a fact that we are facing this not just in the internets but in real life, it is blending really badly and I know we are all really concerned and worried because we know whenever some shitstain says "If I ever hear that in real life I'll shut you up with my hands" that this might actually bleed into real life... and I *do* talk IRL like I do in the 'net, I *am* an outspokenly smarmy asshole who knew *I'm a smarmy asshole* etc., and I have been responding to statements like that with "try and I'll drop your ass" but I know other people can't afford this luxury or privilege. And I know that being drowned in this bullshit is terrifying, we are in terrifying fucking times.

And this might be a tangent but I'm expressing this sympathy because I think - and I see- that we, each of us, are probably just at a loss due to the sheer speed and scale of what's going on. So I'm expressing solidarity and shit. Because it has to be said. Because if worse comes to worse... what are we going to do, what do we have to do, to survive?

[Flagg]

I just don't appreciate seeing a member like Gandalf whose record is impeccable being told what he knows (because I guess Professor X is on staff here) and there being zero attempts at clarification.

[AniThyng]

. On top of that, no gag rules or anything preventing doctors counselling patients on the subject.

To quote Selina Meyer, "If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM."

Ok, to follow on, pretend I am a doctor, I would like to get counselling on what ethical position I should take on the subject, what is your view?

@Alyrium, @Shroom

I understand what you're saying from that perspective, but it still sounds like I am pushing the burden on making the choice back unto the person, which is perfectly valid, I understand that, and perhaps that is how it should be, we should all make our own choices and be accountable to ourselves, but aren't there points where we ourselves question if we are making the right decision? I believe this was alluded to above by someone regarding how there are still things where we override a persons autonomy if they will being harm to others or even themselves, and while I do see the merit of invalidating that if we consider the fetus to be merely a parasite or part of the body insofar as being just a clump of cells, I personally find it very very difficult to make the same argument for a fetus that has crossed the line of being able to survive outside with medical intervention, and find the idea of saying "if *you're* fine with it, go ahead" similarly distasteful.

No "Jesus" required, fwiw.

[Shroom Man 777]

I get that, I mean in later-term abortions I can't myself say comfortably what's the line and I'm pro-choice and I have no problem alienating meatspace people and even famiry by saying it out in the open IRL.

I guess... a lot of what I'm saying is from the therapeutic carer's approach/perspective. I mean, that has different "stakes" and "amount of say" one can have regarding the issue than someone with an entirely different relationship with the person carrying the fetus.

So... IMO my responses to you in regards to your dilemma would be based on... the very same (or similar to) the responses I suggested to you too.

What is your relation to the person mulling the abortion?

[Flagg]

. On top of that, no gag rules or anything preventing doctors counselling patients on the subject.

To quote Selina Meyer, "If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM."

Ok, to follow on, pretend I am a doctor, I would like to get counselling on what ethical position I should take on the subject, what is your view?

@Alyrium, @Shroom

I understand what you're saying from that perspective, but it still sounds like I am pushing the burden on making the choice back unto the person, which is perfectly valid, I understand that, and perhaps that is how it should be, we should all make our own choices and be accountable to ourselves, but aren't there points where we ourselves question if we are making the right decision? I believe this was alluded to above by someone regarding how there are still things where we override a persons autonomy if they will being harm to others or even themselves, and while I do see the merit of invalidating that if we consider the fetus to be merely a parasite or part of the body insofar as being just a clump of cells, I personally find it very very difficult to make the same argument for a fetus that has crossed the line of being able to survive outside with medical intervention, yet find the idea of saying "if *you're* fine with it, go ahead" similarly distasteful.

No "Jesus" required, fwiw.

The problem going on in Republican controlled states over the last 5 years and expected to get worse, are laws forcing doctors to lie to their patients, essentially reading off a statement of bullshit by the state before an abortion, doing invasive and unnecessary "vaginal ultrasounds" (they have to stick a probe up a woman's vagina "because...") and forcing women to view ultrasounds of the fetus. These laws are basically trying to make having an abortion as traumatic as possible, because apparently the abortion itself isn't traumatic enough.

But of course when you mention the ACA, the same people forcing this on women immediately say that the government shouldn't get between you and your doctor.

And I'm of the opinion that if it cannot survive outside the womb without medical assistance, then it's up to the woman and her doctor. But with technology moving as fast as it does, that "cannot survive outside of the womb without medical assistance" window is shrinking. So when that happens it's time to rethink things.

But to your question to Alyrium and Shroom, the "ethical" position is to give the woman as much emotional support as you can despite whether she does what you think is right or wrong because it's her decision, and it's a very hard one to make.

[Shroom Man 777]

That's probably the coolest nicest properest thing Flagg has ever said.

He's right.

Ultimately provide emotional support and be there for that person undergoing such a hard time.

But I understand where AniThyng is coming from too. If one is squeamish about something, there should be more options than just "nod and agree to whatever." There are ways to question choices without being an ass and without revoking emotional support.

It's a dilemma though. These matters are hard.

[Flagg]

That's probably the coolest nicest properest thing Flagg has ever said.

He's right.

Ultimately provide emotional support and be there for that person undergoing such a hard time.

But I understand where AniThyng is coming from too. If one is squeamish about something, there should be more options than just "nod and agree to whatever." There are ways to question choices without being an ass and without revoking emotional support.

It's a dilemma though. These matters are hard.

Shit, the jig is up!

Thanks, though.