Roe v Wade

cincybearcat said:

benjs said:

cincybearcat said:

benjs said:

PP193448 said:

There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations.  To think otherwise is naive.  There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing.  If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks.  No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk.  And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… 
Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower???  I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on.  But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution.  It will never happen in the US.

1. If you're unethical enough to put profit over health, you won't give two fucks about the regulations on late-stage abortions, you'll just charge more and have to do it in more unsafe scenarios. To add to this, the fact that you put fraudulent billing and patient raping on the same line with respect to abuses shows me you have a weak comprehension of nuance

2. Every time abortion is brought up, the conversation shifts to 'at what point is a fetus a human', and very few good faith arguments follow from that - it's often used as a way to say "see, we'll never agree, we're just too different", and the conversation fizzles yet again. This is not by accident, and history tends to repeat itself

3. If late-stage abortions require nuance to evaluate risk to both mother and child, then it's not acceptable to put a binary rule on it judicially, when people who are trained in harm reduction (doctors) are far better equipped to make those judgment calls

4. Again - the all or none is a byproduct of zero wiggle room given from those who unequivocally condemn abortions

for 3 - are you stating that because doctors are the experts therefore there should be no laws on it?

Cause that would wipe out a lot of laws as politicians are rarely the expert.  Perhaps I'm mis-understanding.

Good question. I'm not saying there should be no laws on it - but if doctors were to state unequivocally that harm could come to either mother and/or children depending on the situation, why should it be the court to decide on something so clearly in a health practitioner's wheelhouse?

I do recognize that can of worms that opens, cincy, and I'm not sure the answer. The problem of laws being made by people who aren't versed in the laws' impacts is a real problem. Just watch any hearing with a technology company, and you'll find a congressperson with a lack of understanding asking the questions. I can't imagine health care is any simpler to explain than Facebook.

Got it.  It certainly makes things difficult (tech laws are a good example of that).  I suppose laws could be written that state the qualification someone needs in order to make a decision after a certain time frame though.  

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing. 

So, if everyone received their return with interest for two plus years, and the band cancelled, it’d be okay? Seems it’s just about money and investments, right?

Women, and the men that support women, on this issue, should strike. Sick outs. Not show up for work. Stop spending dollars at all level of events. Yo, NFL, MLB, tourism, etc.

Boycott 

Divest

Sanction

Let them build walls like other countries have. Stop your dollars from supporting your own oppression. PJ should only play states and venues that protect a woman’s right to CHOOSE.

It sucks when there’s consequences for bullying, right?

PJ should play states that they have already committed to play.....after that, they should do what they have always done and decide where they want to schedule concerts based on whatever process they care to follow.

Let's take a look at their current tour...
Hungary - legal up to 12 weeks...some things can extend to 24 (this is actually true for several of the locations)
Poland - legal only if health of the mother is at risk or pregnancy was the result of a crime

in 2018 they played Brazil:
Abortion in Brazil is a crime, with penalties of 1 to 3 years of imprisonment for the pregnant woman, and 1 to 4 years of imprisonment for the doctor or any other person who performs the abortion on someone else. In three specific situations in Brazil, induced abortion is not punishable by law: in cases of risk to woman's life; when the pregnancy is the result of rape; and if the fetus is anencephalic.[1][2] 

They also played Chile:
Abortion in Chile is legal in the following cases: when the mother's life is at risk, when the fetus will not survive the pregnancy, and during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (14 weeks, if the woman is under 14 years old) in the case of rape

So I guess when does it matter and when does it not matter?

oftenreading said:

PP193448 said:

There are plenty of unethical doctors who choose profit over medicine who would invariably perform elective late abortions, especially if there are absolutely no regulations.  To think otherwise is naive.  There are doctors who have raped patients, fraudulently billed more than the services provided, and performed unnecessary procedures to collect more for billing.  If statistics dictate that there is an extremely small percentage of later term abortions (after 21-24 weeks), then why not have regulations after 24 weeks.  No doctor worth his/her license would/should withhold life saving intervention if mother’s life was at risk.  And one could argue to why have restrictions if its only 1% or less of later term abortions… 
Why not compromise to try to keep the statistics lower???  I would argue that the %s would likely increase as time goes on.  But forcing people to choose all or none is not the solution.  It will never happen in the US.

Benjs has already addressed some of the  assumptions in your post, so I'll just tackle one more.

You say that the "% would likely increase as time goes on", by which I think you mean the percentage of late term abortions (or possibly all abortions) would only increase over time without laws restricting them. What are you basing that on? Canada has not had any laws restricting access to abortion since 1988 and abortions have not gone up, either in absolute numbers or percentages, including no increase in later abortions. And why would they? Late abortions are not anything that people want to have happen - they happen when something terrible has occurred, due to fetal abnormality or maternal health issues or tragic life circumstances or the like.

Ample data worldwide demonstrates that abortion rates do not go up overall where abortion is safely and legally available; in fact, they often go down, because access to safe and legal abortion is usually present along with access to safe and legal contraception and maternal-fetal care.

Indifference said:

Patrick_Sea3 said:

It will be interesting which bands will even play in states that made abortion illegal….

well they playing Poland in 2-3 weeks.....

cincybearcat said:

Patrick_Sea3 said:

Indifference said:

Patrick_Sea3 said:

It will be interesting which bands will even play in states that made abortion illegal….

well they playing Poland in 2-3 weeks.....

Poland isn’t a state.

Really? Huh.

Playing Poland and some of their other concerts and skipping any states for already  scheduled concerts would be pretty hypocritical. 

Vitalogensia said:

Wait a sec...Poland isn't a state?

state

[stāt]

NOUN

1. the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time:

   "the state of the company's finances" · 

   [more]

   synonyms:

   condition · shape · situation · circumstances · state of affairs · position · 

   [more]
2. a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government:

   "Germany, Italy, and other European states"

   synonyms:

   country · nation · land · sovereign state · nation state · kingdom · 

   [more]

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

You guys all have a few screws loose!  Everybody knows Poland is a town!

Now, now Brian. you can't go calling people out when you're wrong too.  Poland is a spring that comes straight to you from Maine.

I hope we are all ready to move on and learn from this now.