The Roe Countdown

[Meadmaker]

There is no freaking such thing as a convenient third trimester abortion.

Is there a term you would prefer?

Is there a term to describe an abortion where

1. Conception was not the result of rape, incest, or any other non-consensual activity.
2. There is no reason to believe that the health of the pregnant woman* is in any danger.
3. There is no reason to believe that there is any fetal abnormality that will result in anything other than a fairly typical baby that is likely to go into a fairly typical adult.


Let's take a for instance. Let's say a young woman is going to college. She is a year away from her accounting degree and has a promising future, at least from a material perspective. She has been dating a young man, and they have sexual intercourse. They were using condoms for intercourse, but condoms sometimes are ineffective, especially if not used according to the precise instructions. So, three weeks after her last period was due, she takes a pregnancy test. It's positive. She does not want to begin raising a child at her age, so she decides to have an abortion.


That scenario may seem far fetched to some, but it happens surprisingly often.

Is there a word for that kind of abortion?

I've used "elective abortion" to describe that scenario, but I would glady use any other term people would find more suitable. Is there something we can call that sort of abortion?

*By some definition of "woman".

 

[Ziggurat]

The question that I, specifically, am getting at is not whether they should be legal, but rather who should make that decision? Should it be the courts, or the legislatures?

That is indeed an interesting question, which most people want to avoid. In large part because I think for a lot of people, the honest answer would be, whoever would decide the way I want them to. Or to phrase it differently, the result is what counts, the process is irrelevant as long as it produces the desired result.

Which, to be honest, is an understandable impulse. But it's not an effective theory of government.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there a term you would prefer?

"Elective" is probably better for the current purpose.

 

[TomB]

Is there a term you would prefer?

Is there a term to describe an abortion where

1. Conception was not the result of rape, incest, or any other non-consensual activity.
2. There is no reason to believe that the health of the pregnant woman* is in any danger.
3. There is no reason to believe that there is any fetal abnormality that will result in anything other than a fairly typical baby that is likely to go into a fairly typical adult.


Let's take a for instance. Let's say a young woman is going to college. She is a year away from her accounting degree and has a promising future, at least from a material perspective. She has been dating a young man, and they have sexual intercourse. They were using condoms for intercourse, but condoms sometimes are ineffective, especially if not used according to the precise instructions. So, three weeks after her last period was due, she takes a pregnancy test. It's positive. She does not want to begin raising a child at her age, so she decides to have an abortion.


That scenario may seem far fetched to some, but it happens surprisingly often.

Is there a word for that kind of abortion?

I've used "elective abortion" to describe that scenario, but I would glady use any other term people would find more suitable. Is there something we can call that sort of abortion?

*By some definition of "woman".

The post you replied to specified “third term” meaning third trimester.

The scenario you describe is first trimester.

I believe the point is that the process of abortion in the third trimester is itself not “convenient.”

 

[psionl0]

The ex post facto law provisions apply.

The problem is that it will be up to the courts to decide whether a court ruling constitutes an ex post facto law.

 

[Bob001]

Is there a term you would prefer?

Is there a term to describe an abortion where

1. Conception was not the result of rape, incest, or any other non-consensual activity.
2. There is no reason to believe that the health of the pregnant woman* is in any danger.
3. There is no reason to believe that there is any fetal abnormality that will result in anything other than a fairly typical baby that is likely to go into a fairly typical adult.

Let's take a for instance. Let's say a young woman is going to college. She is a year away from her accounting degree and has a promising future, at least from a material perspective. She has been dating a young man, and they have sexual intercourse. They were using condoms for intercourse, but condoms sometimes are ineffective, especially if not used according to the precise instructions. So, three weeks after her last period was due, she takes a pregnancy test. It's positive. She does not want to begin raising a child at her age, so she decides to have an abortion.
That scenario may seem far fetched to some, but it happens surprisingly often.

Is there a word for that kind of abortion?
.....

What are you talking about? That would be a description of a first-trimester abortion, as the vast majority are under current laws. There's nothing far-fetched about it. In fact, it would be early in the first term. The word "abortion" is sufficient. No qualifier need be applied.

The preceding discussion was about third-trimester abortions. What point are you trying to make?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The post you replied to specified “third term” meaning third trimester.

The scenario you describe is first trimester.

Thank you.

I believe the point is that the process of abortion in the third trimester is itself not “convenient.”

Yes, exactly. But note that in his first trimester scenario he is equating "I'm not ready to be a parent" with "convenience". How many twisted ways can the word "convenience" be misused?

 

[cosmicaug]

You could guess that nobody wants to legalize abortions of convenience in the third trimester, but even then I bet you'd be surprised at the amount of disagreement there

But really what we're talking about is abortions of convenience. All this crap about the health of the mother and late term medical contingencies is a red herring, to avoid having to rationalize or even discuss the actual question: Abortions of convenience, yea or nay?

This is you using manipulative language meant to elicit a certain emotional response. "Abortions of convenience" are not a thing just because you declare it so. Abortion is medical care. Period.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Is there a word for that kind of abortion?

A phrase, yes. "Good family planning". If you insist on a single word, you could also use the adjective "responsible".

 

[cosmicaug]

... I think for a lot of people, the honest answer would be, whoever would decide the way I want them to. Or to phrase it differently, the result is what counts, the process is irrelevant as long as it produces the desired result.

That's blatantly absurd. Maybe that is your honest answer (because you want to tell others what to do); but the whole point of the pro-choice position is that if it's not your body, if you are not the one potentially gestating, you don't get to make the choice.

I do not get to decide the way I want them to.

But maybe, not being able to tell others what to do feels like oppression to some?

 

[theprestige]

There is no freaking such thing as a convenient third trimester abortion.

Stipulated. Let's get back to the question of legalizing abortions of convenience in the first trimester. Late term abortions in extremis are a red herring anyway.

 

[Planigale]

You failed to note that according to your link the fetus was already dead as a result of "A Fatal and Extremely Rare Obstetric Complication" before the procedure. And decapitation was not performed.



You also failed to note that the link includes a gruesome picture that I would prefer not to have seen.

But it did say that an alternative procedure would have been decapitation.

Apologies for lack of warning, re picture. Mea culpa. I should be aware that a dead baby picture might be distressing to normal people. I will take this on board and and flag the issue in future posts if the issue might arise again.

 

[theprestige]

Why do you claim that? The evidence is that less than 1% of abortions occur in the third term, and even under Roe v. Wade the states can prohibit them except to protect the life and health of the mother. Where is your evidence that any significant number are "of convenience?"

From the link above:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html

Or do you think abortion of a fetus so severely damaged that it can't survive to be "of convenience?"

I think it's a red herring.

 

[Meadmaker]

The post you replied to specified “third term” meaning third trimester.

The scenario you describe is first trimester.

I believe the point is that the process of abortion in the third trimester is itself not “convenient.”

It depends on exactly whose point.


I think the outrage about the term "abortion of convenience" is just a distraction from the question that was previously asked, which was about which branch of government should make a decision about exactly when abortion should be legal, and when it should be illegal. Instead of addressing the question, there was some moral indignation about using a term.

So, fine, call it an "elective abortion" if you wish. My "for instance" concerned a first trimester abortion, but the definition didn't. A second "for instance" would be a woman who gets pregnant, wants to have a baby, and seven months later the scoundrel who got her pregnant dumps her, runs away, and sends a text message saying he wants nothing to do with her or her baby ever again.

In those circumstances, which happen far more often than we would wish, I think most women would have the baby anyway, but the question is whether there should be any option at that point. More specifically, my question would be who decides whether there is an option at that point. Legislators, or judges?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Any thoughts on what is next? I think they are most likely going to go after Lawrence v Texas. Though I do wonder if they will keep consensual sodomy as a protected right for heterosexual couples or throw out all protections for sodomy.

The republican party, they want a government small enough to hide under your bed to try to catch you having the wrong kind of sex.

 

[Bob001]

I think it's a red herring.

Evidence?

 

[theprestige]

The post you replied to specified “third term” meaning third trimester.

The scenario you describe is first trimester.

I believe the point is that the process of abortion in the third trimester is itself not “convenient.”

The point is that third term abortions in extremis are a red herring. Invoked to avoid discussing the real controversy: abortions of convenience.

You just demonstrated the point in practice. Forget about the third trimester for a moment. Should Meadmaker's scenario be legal?

 

[Meadmaker]

The problem is that it will be up to the courts to decide whether a court ruling constitutes an ex post facto law.

I can't cite specific rulings, but I think that it's pretty clear. In every case I've ever heard of that was remotely similar, laws aren't applied retroactively. If it's legal at the time you did it, you can't be prosecuted. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, no one has to worry about being prosecuted for having or for assisting an abortion that occurred prior to Roe being overturned.

At least, so I'm told.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Stipulated. Let's get back to the question of legalizing abortions of convenience in the first trimester.

Let's stay on the question of what "convenience" means to you since you apparently want that concept codified in to law. Can you give me a definition that doesn't translate to something meant to completely mispresent the actual facts that happen in the real world?

I don't think any abortion at all can be truly said to be convenient.

BTW at the moment first trimester abortions are legal.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's blatantly absurd. Maybe that is your honest answer (because you want to tell others what to do); but the whole point of the pro-choice position is that if it's not your body, if you are not the one potentially gestating, you don't get to make the choice.

I do not get to decide the way I want them to.

But maybe, not being able to tell others what to do feels like oppression to some?

We'll put you into the "I don't understand the question" category.


Don't worry. You have lots of company there, and it's a subset of the "I don't care about the question" category, which contains most Americans.