(11-15-2023 01:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Was a pre-term delivery on the table? I read the article but quite quickly. It seems that the woman would have chosen this option if it were available.

Why would it not be, especially if an abortion would be? Understand that I'm advocating for a real, practical solution and not claiming that one existed in this situation.

If the mother wanted the baby and the baby were in distress, it seems obvious that a pre-term delivery would be on the table... hence my supposition that it would be on the table here.

Quote:Why not? What would be the difference here between a pre-term delivery and a termination of the birth? Why would one of given them a chance to hold the baby while the other wouldn't?

If the delivery killed the baby then the situations would be identical. If the baby lasted for only a few minutes outside the womb then the situations would be different. The presupposition in the article was that they would be somehow denied the opportunity to hold their child and say goodbye.... which isn't true in either case. You can't hold a living victim of an abortion and holding a child who died from an abortion or a natural death is the same. I'd argue that most would be less personally traumatized by a natural death than a chosen one, but that is opinion and anecdotal.

Quote:As I understand it the laws set up situations where you have to wait for 1) the woman's life to become at risk (subjective) or 2) the fetus dies.

First, the subjectivity of that isn't any more subjective in this case than in any other medical case.... so I don't think its as subjective as laymen want to argue... but more...
Second, a doctor wouldn't just stand by if a fetus were in life threatening distress. They would act, and the best choice MIGHT be to try and deliver the baby.

In an abortion, you absolutely wait for the fetus to die before removing it.

Hence why I see this as a false/misleading choice.

Quote:Sorry... what options did the doctors in Missouri have?

The same as they would if she'd wanted to keep the baby.... or if she had been incapacitated and they didn't know what she wanted.

Again, I'm not arguing that this is a good/great situation currently in Missouri... I'm just trying to avoid misleading conversations.

Quote:Some women might think of carrying a dying fetus as a blessing but plenty would not.

Isn't that what I said? What I said regarding the article is that they are always portrayed as a burden with killing that child as being a blessing. Neither of those situations are universal.

Quote:And yet these statues often lead to paralysis of the doctors who worry about censure/fines/loss of licenses,etc.

That's the claim, yet we rarely see censure, fines or loss of licenses from these acts... unless as in Gosnell they are egregious.

I think that claim is overblown... though it certainly may bring some doctors who are rarely in this situation into that situation more often.... as in ER docs do it every day... OB/GYNs probably not as much.

How often though is this the case? Where the baby isn't viable and the mother wants an abortion 'too late' but neither the baby nor the mother is in current threatening position?

Again, I said this was a matter for the AMA, not legislators. Perhaps argue for an 'emotional trauma' as part of the determination... but I'd think you'd have to show that choosing to kill your baby as opposed to carrying it until it died on its own was meaningfully less traumatic.... or how you know it would be the case 'in this situation'.

Quote:It sounded like the doctors here thought that this was a completely nonviable situation and would have liked to terminate the pregnancy but felt that state laws prevented any action.

That's the disconnect.... and I think it is self-serving. That is ALWAYS the situation... and even under Roe, was the situation... where you had someone barred from an abortion due to time, but doctors thought they had a completely nonviable situation etc... That is now and always has been the argument against ANY regulation of abortion.... which of course is just as contrary to Roe then as it is to legislation now... with the only difference being how wide that window of time is.

The court in Roe and in its over-turning recognized SOME inherent rights of the unborn.... and the solution proposed by the premise in every such situation ALWAYS ignores those rights.... at least if they in any way conflict with the mothers.

As I said... I think this is an issue for the AMA and not legislatures. The AMA already has guidelines of a sort as to what constitutes 'life threatening' or even 'emergency'. It is not a nebulous academic linguistic argument but one supported by decades of research and medical evidence and practice. By that I mean people come into the ER every day insisting that they have an emergency... and the doctors NEVER determine how quickly to treat that patient based on that claim/belief... and certainly not on a first come, first served basis.... but instead based on clearly documented symptoms and data. They do this to protect themselves from the very same sort of lawsuits that you are worried about here... that their medical judgement be second-guessed.

If those guidelines that protect ER docs are not sufficient to protect OB/GYNs then we need to improve the guidelines.... and I'm open to that.... but that isn't ever the case presented. It's always 'concern' about that thing happening causing paralysis... which of course ignores the right of the state to regulate abortions which was part of Roe... and thus has been the law of the land for more than 50 years (since that was also the law before Roe).

Said differently, the only way to take that risk away completely is to decide against IDK, 100 years of precedent that the unborn have zero rights.... hence why I said that 'that side' needed to overturn Roe more than even the pro-life side did.

There aren't any real good analogies because the situation is so unique, but imagine conjoined twins with one in what is seen as a permanent coma... can the other twin just decide to terminate the one in the coma? Obviously it is a MASSIVE burden on that one to be connected to the other, but are their rights the only ones that matter?

Certainly if the one in the coma were to become otherwise ill and became a threat to the life of the other, a medical decision would be made... just as here... but I just don't imagine that you would be allowed to do it pre-emptively... at least not without specific due process/a court order.

It's not a perfect example but its not completely off base either... and while rare, it is similar in its connection (no pun intended) and the weight of two horrible options.

Which again is all the more reason why abortions should be done early and be as cheap or free as possible.