• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

Wakelaw2006 said:
Not sure why scooter is finding it so difficult to find statutes, but here is Missouri’s trigger law - it is a complete ban, except in the case of a “medical emergency” and “medical emergency” isn’t defined. That is incredibly (I’d argue unconstitutionally) vague for a criminal statute, but if I’m a doctor in Missouri, there is almost no way I’d feel comfortable performing a D&C after a miscarriage. Especially since the burden of proof is on the doctor to show that there was a medical emergency. So scooter, please go ahead and tell us why a person who miscarries in Missouri shouldn’t be worried about having access to a D&C afterwards.

188.017. Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act — limitation on abortions, when — affirmative defense — contingent effective date. — 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act".
  2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency. Any person who knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license by his or her professional licensing board. A woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subsection shall not be prosecuted for a conspiracy to violate the provisions of this subsection.
  3. It shall be an affirmative defense for any person alleged to have violated the provisions of subsection 2 of this section that the person performed or induced an abortion because of a medical emergency. The defendant shall have the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not.
  *4. The enactment of this section shall only become effective upon notification to the revisor of statutes by an opinion by the attorney general of Missouri, a proclamation by the governor of Missouri, or the adoption of a concurrent resolution by the Missouri general assembly that:
  (1) The United States Supreme Court has overruled, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in this section, and that as a result, it is reasonably probable that this section would be upheld by the court as constitutional;
  (2) An amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted that has the effect of restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in this section; or
  (3) The United States Congress has enacted a law that has the effect of restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in this section.
Click to expand...

I already said the total ban laws might be more problematic. This one doesn't look great. The title of the statute itself makes it clear that the intent is to protect the "life of the unborn child" - so clearly there is no intent to prohibit procedures after the unborn child has miscarried - there is no more life to protect. But the law should make that much clearer. I would like to hear the state attorney general or someone clarify how the law will be interpreted in those types of cases. Hell, I would love to hear the question presented to those who wrote and passed the law - "did you intend this to prohibit abortion procedures once a baby has miscarried?" I cannot imagine how a lawmaker would justify responding in the affirmative to that question.
 
birdman said:
Too bad Scooter won’t read that because it’s an attack on him.
Click to expand...

This kind of attitude and response is what I am talking about - and why you don't see other people on my side of the issue here discussing it. I'm trying here and don't have 12 hours a day to research this stuff...
 
scooter84 said:
This kind of attitude and response is what I am talking about - and why you don't see other people on my side of the issue here discussing it. I'm trying here and don't have 12 hours a day to research this stuff...
Click to expand...

all the conservatives disappeared when Trump was elected. Almost like they couldn't defend their party anymore. It has nothing to do with the attitude of the people who still post here.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
all the conservatives disappeared when Trump was elected. Almost like they couldn't defend their party anymore. It has nothing to do with the attitude of the people who still post here.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. There is a definite mob mentality against anyone posting from the right. The messages of support I get from people reading but not posting bear that out.

That is also why I only venture onto the Tunnels once or twice a year, and immediately regret it every time.
 
Last edited:
BeachBumDeac said:
Scooter these are things we are already seeing in practice. It's not theoretical. Doctors are withholding care to women of childbearing age because of the possibility of losing their professional license.
Click to expand...

You are not going to give an arthritis drug or a lupus drug to a woman who is not pregnant because of an anti-abortion law? That doesn't seem like a problem with the law, that seems like a problem with the Dr.
 
scooter84 said:
You are not going to give an arthritis drug or a lupus drug to a woman who is not pregnant because of an anti-abortion law? That doesn't seem like a problem with the law, that seems like a problem with the Dr.
Click to expand...

So now you see that these laws have a chilling effect on medical treatments beyond what is specifically spelled out by the letter of the law.

Don’t think those doctors came to that conclusion on their own after reading the statute. They were advised to modify their treatment plans by their in house risk management.
 
scooter84 said:
I beg to differ. There is a definite mob mentality against anyone posting from the right. The messages of support I get from people reading but not posting bear that out.

That is also why I only venture onto the Tunnels once or twice a year, and immediately regret it every time.
Click to expand...


If you're afraid of a "mob mentality" on an internet message board, imagine how vulnerable pregnant women feel about the "pro-life" mobs forcing them to continue their pregnancy.

Conservatives have gotten so used to their safe spaces where they all coalesce around the same lies that they can't handle being around people who confront those lies.

For example, your explanations center around the "fetal heartbeat" which is not what you think it is:

I don't understand what you mean here? The heartbeat laws are defining the point in time when an abortion becomes illegal - and that is when the fetal heartbeat is detected - thus the heart has developed.
Click to expand...

The fetal heartbeat is an electrical pulse at the start of heart development during the embryonic stage. It's not a sign of a developed or functioning heart, a muscle with four chambers that pumps blood throughout the body.

Here is an article with more detail:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...l-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion
 
PhDeac said:
If you're afraid of a "mob mentality" on an internet message board, imagine how vulnerable pregnant women feel about the "pro-life" mobs forcing them to continue their pregnancy.

Conservatives have gotten so used to their safe spaces where they all coalesce around the same lies that they can't handle being around people who confront those lies. This couldn't be a more perfect example of the old pot... kettle analogy for this place.

For example, your explanations center around the "fetal heartbeat" which is not what you think it is:



The fetal heartbeat is an electrical pulse at the start of heart development during the embryonic stage. It's not a sign of a developed or functioning heart, a muscle with four chambers that pumps blood throughout the body.

Here is an article with more detail:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...l-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion
Click to expand...

When the law refers to the "steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart" that sounds pretty clear to me - but I am no doctor.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
So now you see that these laws have a chilling effect on medical treatments beyond what is specifically spelled out by the letter of the law.

Don’t think those doctors came to that conclusion on their own after reading the statute. They were advised to modify their treatment plans by their in house risk management.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it less stupid.
 
If this is the pot calling the kettle black, which lies are you claiming the left coalesces around?

Or are you saying that as a Black man, I also fear mobs of people who disagree with me? To that point, I would say my fears are much more legitimate than yours. What white mobs do to Black people is much worse than being "cancelled" or whatever you fear.

scooter84 said:
When the law refers to the "steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart" that sounds pretty clear to me - but I am no doctor.
Click to expand...

There is no "fetal heart." That's the point. If you read what I posted, you'll see people who are doctors explain it. "I'm am no doctor" is not an excuse for repeating easily debunked lies.
 
scooter84 said:
I already said the total ban laws might be more problematic. This one doesn't look great. The title of the statute itself makes it clear that the intent is to protect the "life of the unborn child" - so clearly there is no intent to prohibit procedures after the unborn child has miscarried - there is no more life to protect. But the law should make that much clearer. I would like to hear the state attorney general or someone clarify how the law will be interpreted in those types of cases. Hell, I would love to hear the question presented to those who wrote and passed the law - "did you intend this to prohibit abortion procedures once a baby has miscarried?" I cannot imagine how a lawmaker would justify responding in the affirmative to that question.
Click to expand...

The statute says what it says - no abortions, except in the case of a medical emergency. Any good conservative strict constructionist would tell you that the intent you seek is quite frankly irrelevant. You asked for an example of a law that prevents a doctor from performing a d&c after a miscarriage, with the implication being that those who are saying such things are being hyperbolic. They clearly are not. Whether anyone is actually prosecuted under the law is also irrelevant - if it has the effect of one doctor not performing a procedure they believe to be medically appropriate (and I’m sure that has already happened), then it has done what those arguing with you are saying. I understand that you think such a law is ridiculous, but the point is that they exist and I don’t see anyone on the right chomping at the bit to amend them.
 
scooter84 said:
This kind of attitude and response is what I am talking about - and why you don't see other people on my side of the issue here discussing it. I'm trying here and don't have 12 hours a day to research this stuff...
Click to expand...

Me paraphrasing your own post is labeled “attitude.” Cool.

I have sincere and thorough responses to your “questions” yesterday and you responded by declaring they were attacks and that you weren’t going to read them. I think conservative fragility is the problem here, not my “attitude.”
 
scooter84 said:
You are not going to give an arthritis drug or a lupus drug to a woman who is not pregnant because of an anti-abortion law? That doesn't seem like a problem with the law, that seems like a problem with the Dr.
Click to expand...

Right, it’s the exact same thing that happened with the CRT laws. They were written with reasonable sound language but have been used to intimidate educators and suppress curriculum on race and history all together.
 
PhDeac said:
If this is the pot calling the kettle black, which lies are you claiming the left coalesces around?

My point was that this whole forum is an echo chamber for people with the same viewpoint - exactly what you were accusing the right of doing - hanging out and listening only to those that agree with them.

Or are you saying that as a Black man, I also fear mobs of people who disagree with me? To that point, I would say my fears are much more legitimate than yours. What white mobs do to Black people is much worse than being "cancelled" or whatever you fear.

I don't even know where you were going with that or what it has to do with the discussion at hand so I will leave it alone.



There is no "fetal heart." That's the point. If you read what I posted, you'll see people who are doctors explain it. "I'm am no doctor" is not an excuse for repeating easily debunked lies.

I read it and generally disagree. The plain text of the law refers to "steady and repetitive contraction of the fetal heart" - it seems like that would be difficult to detect when, in your words, there is "no fetal heart".
Click to expand...
 
birdman said:
Me paraphrasing your own post is labeled “attitude.” Cool.

I have sincere and thorough responses to your “questions” yesterday and you responded by declaring they were attacks and that you weren’t going to read them. I think conservative fragility is the problem here, not my “attitude.”
Click to expand...

You are generally a great poster and I appreciate all the bird knowledge, but you turn into a sarcastic ass on the Tunnels.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
The statute says what it says - no abortions, except in the case of a medical emergency. Any good conservative strict constructionist would tell you that the intent you seek is quite frankly irrelevant. You asked for an example of a law that prevents a doctor from performing a d&c after a miscarriage, with the implication being that those who are saying such things are being hyperbolic. They clearly are not. Whether anyone is actually prosecuted under the law is also irrelevant - if it has the effect of one doctor not performing a procedure they believe to be medically appropriate (and I’m sure that has already happened), then it has done what those arguing with you are saying. I understand that you think such a law is ridiculous, but the point is that they exist and I don’t see anyone on the right chomping at the bit to amend them.
Click to expand...

I looked up the e-mail for the Missouri Atty Gen. but I didn't bother sending a note because you have to give your address on their contact form and I don't think they are going to respond to someone who doesn't live in the state. I do think enforcement of such a law to prevent post-miscarriage procedures would be ridiculous and would press the relevant officials, DAs, Attorneys General, lawmakers, whomever, to publicly state that such was not the intention and that they won't be enforced as such... I don't know how to make that happen from here.
 
scooter84 said:
Doesn't make it less stupid.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting it is stupid to follow the advice of your hospital’s or practice’s legal counsel?

Eta: no sarcasm intended, I really don’t understand your position here. In a lot of cases Drs.’ Careers and freedoms are going to be on the line. And they are going to be wary, at least at first, about aggressive treatment of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. You seem to be saying we should blame the doctors instead of the conservative politicians that are interfering and writing bad laws.
 
Last edited:
The Tunnels isn’t an echo chamber. There so much disagreement here all the time.

All the conservatives who used to post either still post and aren’t conservatives anymore or don’t want to engage in real discussions. It’s silly to equate that to the Tucker Carlson Reddit page or whatever.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Scooter these are things we are already seeing in practice. It's not theoretical. Doctors are withholding care to women of childbearing age because of the possibility of losing their professional license.
Click to expand...

What doctors? The article you posted linked to (1) some twitter accounts saying they couldn't get lupus medicine, which doesn't make any sense when none of these laws are really even active yet, and (2) a Dr who had a patient that she was concerned about a delay but whose surgery occurred on time. Where is the doctor who withheld care?

Wakelaw2006 said:
The statute says what it says - no abortions, except in the case of a medical emergency. Any good conservative strict constructionist would tell you that the intent you seek is quite frankly irrelevant. You asked for an example of a law that prevents a doctor from performing a d&c after a miscarriage, with the implication being that those who are saying such things are being hyperbolic. They clearly are not. Whether anyone is actually prosecuted under the law is also irrelevant - if it has the effect of one doctor not performing a procedure they believe to be medically appropriate (and I’m sure that has already happened), then it has done what those arguing with you are saying. I understand that you think such a law is ridiculous, but the point is that they exist and I don’t see anyone on the right chomping at the bit to amend them.
Click to expand...

That does not make any sense. If the doctor believes the procedure is medically appropriate, then the procedure is allowed. If the doctor does not perform the procedure then did he/she really believe it was medically allowed? The failure to perform the procedure rests with the doctor's opinion of its necessity, not the law. Doctors do shit all the time that generally prompts the need for a second opinion. If the abortion is being performed solely because the life of the mother is in jeopardy such that it is truly a life or death decision, one would think that a second opinion would be warranted to confirm that diagnosis if the first doctor is concerned about the gray area, and the confirming second opinion would be the necessary protection under the law (which the first doctor should want anyway if the mother is terminating solely for her own health). If the first doctor is fully convinced that it is such an emergency that no second opinion is warranted, then the his/her actions are clearly justified under the law. Unless the doctor fucks up about the severity of the situation, which is a risk present in all serious medical diagnosis and the doctor should presumably want to hedge against in all scenarios not limited to abortions.

I'm fully pro-choice, but Scooter is the only one on here looking at this rationally in terms of the actual laws as written. The rest of you are so far off in the margins that it undermines the primary position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top