OT Roe V Wade In Trouble (1 Viewer)

[Chris Craig]

We were talking in the theoretical, Chris. If it was decided that abortion was permitted outright for the first two trimesters, but only allowed for medical reasons in the third; and if virtually no third trimester abortions occur at all as was suggested, how does that drastically increase women’s suffering?

I’m well aware that many states will choose to ban all abortions as a result of the recent SCOTUS decision.

Isn't that how it was basically before roe v Wade getting thrown out?

 

[e_blazer]

Isn't that how it was basically before roe v Wade getting thrown out?

Roe v Wade left it open to the states as to whether they allowed late term abortions. There was a subsequent case, whose name I don’t remember, that made all abortions legal up to the actual birth.

 

[Phatguysrule]

We were talking in the theoretical, Chris. If it was decided that abortion was permitted outright for the first two trimesters, but only allowed for medical reasons in the third; and if virtually no third trimester abortions occur at all as was suggested, how does that drastically increase women’s suffering?

I’m well aware that many states will choose to ban all abortions as a result of the recent SCOTUS decision.

That's how it was before the SCOTUS decision. The decision which was made based on religious ideals. That's why people are attacking that religion.

When a religion oppresses enough people it will be seen as evil. That's why no law should ever be made with religious pretenses.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That's why no law should ever be made with religious pretenses.

Jesus Fucking Christ dude, there should totally be a federal law not to use the lord's name in vain.

 

[Phatguysrule]

There are big differences among syndromes. One person can have a syndrome that is very mild and the next child can be very severe for that same syndrome. A dr can not detect the severity in the womb on many syndromes. There are also many syndromes that can't even correctly be detected based on genetic testing. The doctors are eyeballing and making a call based on what they may think it is based on an ultrasound. In our case, they couldn't even detect that our child had a rare syndrome. We didn't know until kiddo was born. The hospital had no idea what to do.

I live in this world. I hear it from parents and through my experiences with doctors regarding disabilities, I believe it. In Portland, there are many doctors that are complete morons based on their lack of experience in certain areas where the doctors should not be giving ANY advice. The only things they know are from outdated textbooks that are no longer applicable. Many of these kids are THRIVING. But if you looked in a textbook, they are likely going to be intellectually less than and will never amount to anything.

That is why it's important to get a doctor you trust.

They obviously didn't trust their doctor or they wouldn't be in the current situation (not that it's bad, just a different situation than otherwise).

However, it's not likely that many raising a special needs child would say they regret passing on the option doctors offered and continuing the pregnancy. It's understandable that people in that situation might also exaggerate the situation towards making themselves look like the child's hero.

I'm not saying they are lying, but it makes sense that people who chose to be in that situation would color the story that way.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Jesus Fucking Christ dude, there should totally be a federal law not to use the lord's name in vain.

True, but I thought His middle name started with an 'H'...

 

[Phatguysrule]

Roe v Wade left it open to the states as to whether they allowed late term abortions. There was a subsequent case, whose name I don’t remember, that made all abortions legal up to the actual birth.

Which is how things were for decades, and abortion rates dropped for decades, as did pregnancy related deaths, crime rates, etc.

That was the correct ruling. If you want women to avoid abortions, the solutions are birth control and education. Not the law.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

True, but I thought His middle name started with an 'H'...

Have you ever met anyone with a middle name Hucking?

 

[e_blazer]

Which is how things were for decades, and abortion rates dropped for decades, as did pregnancy related deaths, crime rates, etc.

That was the correct ruling. If you want women to avoid abortions, the solutions are birth control and education. Not the law.

Correct by what metric? By your philosophical view, sure, but why is your view more important or more correct than other views that see abortion as evil because of the loss of a potential human life?

Constitutionally? That’s the only one that is important to the SCOTUS. Ginsberg knew that the right to privacy underpinnings were a stretch and that Roe v Wade would be open to exactly the type of challenge that it fell to. She felt that equal protection was a much better option. Some are pushing now for a challenge based on freedom of religion. That seems to me to be a better option. Different religions have varying viewpoints on when life begins. Laws shouldn’t be allowed if they promote one religious view over others.

Being angry and bitter towards pro-life supporters doesn’t accomplish anything. Effective political and legal strategies are needed if you want to see your viewpoint prevail.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Correct by what metric? By your philosophical view, sure, but why is your view more important or more correct than other views that see abortion as evil because of the loss of a potential human life?

Constitutionally? That’s the only one that is important to the SCOTUS. Ginsberg knew that the right to privacy underpinnings were a stretch and that Roe v Wade would be open to exactly the type of challenge that it fell to. She felt that equal protection was a much better option. Some are pushing now for a challenge based on freedom of religion. That seems to me to be a better option. Different religions have varying viewpoints on when life begins. Laws shouldn’t be allowed if they promote one religious view over others.

Being angry and bitter towards pro-life supporters doesn’t accomplish anything. Effective political and legal strategies are needed if you want to see your viewpoint prevail.

By every metric. By the number of deaths, amount of suffering caused, impact to society, everything. Including effectiveness.

Every single metric is better after Roe and before the SCOTUS ruling.

It had already been ruled on and all justices said under oath that ruling should be respected. We shouldn't have to defend it and deal with people being refused access to lifesaving procedures right now. But because of religion we do.

Because of religion, any other political strategy will likely not work. And if it doesn't, I'll be even angrier and more bitter than I am now. And Christianity will even more likely be remembered as evil, if we survive the repercussions.

And I'm not angry or bitter toward anybody except the justices who knowingly lied and turned the Supreme Court and constitution into a mockery.

 

[crandc]

No one plans to get cancer. People do plan to get pregnant. Sometimes it takes a long time. For pregnant women diagnosed with cancer, it's especially devastating. Cancer treatment causes severe damage to fetus but delay can be fatal, so in most cases she has little option but to terminate the pregnancy she might have really wanted.
That is now illegal in almost half the country.
New York Times ran article on what they now face. Even if Republicans allow an exception for the incubator's life, that only applies to immediate life threatening situations and that's not how cancer works. If delaying treatment means she could die in a year not sufficient reason for abortion. If she undergoes treatment and fetus is damaged or killed she could face charges under fetal harm laws. So she can either go without treatment risking her life, or travel out of state, which Republicans are also trying to outlaw.
Own it, those who cheered end of Roe. Women dying of cancer, leaving their children without a mother. That's what you wanted.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Trust me, doctors when it comes to rare syndromes often get out of their own lane. They need to be referring parents making these decisions to parent groups or doctors with plenty of experience. Not giving them info from old textbooks.

Everyones situation is different and as I've said, i'm pro choice. They just should have the real life information when making said decision.

While people could and can exaggerate everything, with how many people have said their doctors read out of a textbook, admitted they never have seen a child with said syndrome (my kid was the only kid to every be born with a syndrome at a huge Portland hospital), drs absolutely are telling parents the wrong things about things they don't know about.

Many times drs know less than I do about the syndrome and will admit that. They even take my lead on whatever I need (her pediatrician does that with any referrals I need. Even if it is somewhere out of state. No questions asked.)

But doctors generally know more than the patient. It makes sense to me that as long as the doctor and the patient agree on the course of action it should be fine.

If they are going to terminate it should be done with as little delay as possible. It's a tough enough decision to make without second guessing them.

Doctors generally know the risks. They have to account for the worst case scenerio, not so much for the best case scenerio.

Far better to have somebody disappointed that you suggested termination than for them to have a child they can't deal with.

The law should not be involved in any way.

 

[barfo]

I 100% disagree dude. You are so far out of your lane with this it isn't funny.

Doctors literally tell people that their kids won't be able to walk, will be non-verbal, and can not have a quality life without knowing anything other than what textbooks written 50 years ago say. And its all BS. These kids can and do go to college and have prestigious careers.

Doctors should refer to specialists more information or parent groups to get the answers they need to make the right decision.

Doctors can be wrong, sure. Either due to ignorance or incompetence or the complexity of biology or other reasons.

They are human, and it's a difficult job. I'm not sure why I'd listen to the guy next door more than my doc, though.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I 100% disagree dude. You are so far out of your lane with this it isn't funny.

Doctors literally tell people that their kids won't be able to walk, will be non-verbal, and can not have a quality life without knowing anything other than what textbooks written 50 years ago say. And its all BS. These kids can and do go to college and have prestigious careers.

Doctors should refer to specialists for more information or parent groups to get the answers the parents need to make the right decision.

I don't see this as a problem worthy of any abortion restriction law.

If you want to sue a doctor over it feel free, but doubt there is much of a case there.

I'd want my doctor to give me his/her advice and if I wanted to see a specialist I'd ask for a referral.

I'm 100% on board with making information available to patients, but not with any restrictions on procedures like abortion. If the primary care physician approves it and the patient wants it there should be no delay.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Doctors literally tell people that their kids won't be able to walk, will be non-verbal, and can not have a quality life without knowing anything other than what textbooks written 50 years ago say. And its all BS. These kids can and do go to college and have prestigious careers.

I'll say this...

I've never had a doctor tell me anything would or wouldn't be. They give me a range of possibilities. I find it hard to believe many doctors are telling people their kid will not be able to walk or talk. It's far more likely they are telling patients a range of possibilities. Which is exactly what they should be doing, IMO.

I've never had a doctor refuse to give me a referral when I've asked.

I would require evidence before believing this is a problem.

 

[barfo]

You don't listen to your neighbor. Nobody is saying that. You listen to the specialists and parents that have actually raised children with the disability. That is the best resource, hands down. They have been there. You don't have to listen to just one. Social media groups have thousands of people there to weigh in that have experienced it.

Ok. I'm not sure anyone is arguing against getting as much information as one can in that situation?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Literally nobody said anything about making it a law. I don't know where you got that.

Doctors are doing a disservice when they give advice on syndromes they don't know anything about other than outdated material.

If you don't think a doctor telling a family that their child won't talk, walk or have a quality of life influences them, i don't know what to tell you. In many cases that information is FALSE. Hence where a specialist and parent groups of said disability should be the information givers.

I'm not saying you are suggesting a law. Just that I don't think this reported problem rises to that level of importance.

I'm 100% on board with doctors giving people information and referrals, and if we can come up with a way to make that information more readily available I would support that.

 

[Phatguysrule]

LOL. Again, you are so far out of your league on this.

You think Doctors are experts on everything? I told you they didn't even have a clue what to do with my kid when they were born. It is a syndrome that is 1 in 70,000. Tax professionals are often experts in certain areas. Doctors. Dentists. There are generalists that know info from experience and textbooks. In many cases, textbooks. There are 5 known people in the Portland area with my kids syndrome. She is the only patient of the plastic surgeon with said syndrome at one of the huge hospitals.

They don't have a range of possibilities to give. Because all they know is what is in the textbooks. Not what these people are doing in real life. Parents don't let doctors in the groups for a reason. You have to battle doctor egos and those that just want to pad their resumes.

I don't think I'd trust a group focused on medical disorders that excluded medical professionals. Most doctors have access to data far more recent than 50 year old textbooks. But to each their own.

I hope you've found a doctor you trust or a solution that works for you and your family.

 

[Phatguysrule]

@Phatguysrule said there isn't time to waste. The decision needs to be made asap even if it is information from a doctor that is FALSE.

Idiotic.

Not what I said. I was very clearly talking about legal delays throughout the entire conversation.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If true, you brought that in out of nowhere. Not once was I ever talking about legal delays. No idea why you would think that.

I didn't suggest you were talking about that. I didn't think that.

I simply said I don't think the problem rises to that level and if people want more information they should ask for it.

If a doctor is giving false information they are probably subject to a lawsuit.
Thinking of available solutions I'm not sure what else could be done.

In this situation I would personally want my doctor to give me their opinion and I would ask for more information or a referral if I thought it necessary.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Just showing you don't get it and are ignorant on this subject.

Nobody takes their word and starts administering medical procedures. They tell you their experience navigatinf the medical world and who the nation's doctors familiar with the disability.

Correct. I don't get it.

My kids have had concerns of rare disorders, as have I. Luckily none have been debilitating.

We asked for more information and saught the tests and treatments available. If that wasn't working we'd keep looking and asking for referrals. I've had doctors recommend groups for issues in the past, so I don't see why that would be a sticking point.

There is a degree of personal responsibility here as well.

Again, I fully support getting more information to patients, as I've said throughout the entire conversation.

I'm just not sure what kind of changes or requirements of doctors could be realistically implemented.

 

[Phatguysrule]

And they just as easily could tell you a child won't walk, talk or have any quality of life when that child very easily could grow up and attend college and thrive. Happens all the time with rare disorders.

I guess they could, but I've never had a doctor relay information to me in that way. They always give a range of possibilities, and let the patient know the worst case scenario.

That's the information I would want if there was a problem with one of our pregnancies. Then we'd go from there.

 

[Chris Craig]

What if they only know information from outdated textbooks? That isn't nearly close to the truth nowadays with how these kids end up? Because that's where you end up with many rare disorders today.

No.

They find these things out through testing. DNA and Chromosomes. The markers tell the story.

When my wife was pregnant the doctor found markers for a certain very rare birth defect that would have basically meant my son would not have survived long out of the womb. We were open if that was the case to the idea of abortion. It was not what we wanted, but if the situation dictated it, we were opened to the possibility of having to do that and it tore us up.

We found out when we were visiting relatives in California. Our doctor called us down there and was relaying information as he had it. There were other results we were waiting for that could confirm it. We waited, crying and holding each other.

Luckily though, it turned out something like one of us had the marker, but the other did not, and he didn't have the defect. We got the call and were very relieved.

Sometimes doctors jump the gun and give out possibilities before all the facts are in. They should probably wait, but they are just relaying the facts as they become available.

 

[YamTastic]

Can someone tell me plainly why this conversation is happening in the abortion rights thread if it doesn't have anything to do with anyone's stance on abortion rights?

To bring it around:
Yes, there is a genre of doctor who really really likes eugenics, and will suggest abortion based on a fear mongering worst-case scenario.
Yes, abortion should be legal and accessible to all for any reason.

As soon as they find genetic markers for being trans, these doctors will definitely recommend aborting trans fetuses. That doesn't make abortion wrong.

Ban eugenicist doctors, not abortions.

 

[SlyPokerCat]

No.

They find these things out through testing. DNA and Chromosomes. The markers tell the story.

When my wife was pregnant the doctor found markers for a certain very rare birth defect that would have basically meant my son would not have survived a long out of the womb. We were open if that was the case to the idea of abortion. It was not what we wanted, but if the situation dictated it, we were opened to the possibility of having to do that and it tore us up.

We found out when we were visiting relatives in California. Our doctor called us down there and was relaying information as he had it. There were other results we were waiting for that could confirm it. We waited, crying and holding each other.

Luckily though, it turned out something like one of us had the marker, but the other did not, and he didn't have the defect. We got the call and were very relieved.

Sometimes doctors jump the gun and give out possibilities before all the facts are in. They should probably wait, but they are just relaying the facts as they become available.

No. They don't test for every genetic syndrome.

 

[Chris Craig]

No. They don't test for every genetic syndrome.

That's how they came across my son's possible defect.

They arent working out of 50 year old text books. Medicine is continuously updated.

 

[riverman]

My heart surgeons are pretty open about how much educated guessing goes on in their profession....they can only give you their best educated assumption in most cases and usually go into treating a patient with a plan b, plan c, etc.....these days doctors have learned to pretty much stay non committal about results but focus on best possibilities. Law suits have changed a lot in the way they talk to patients pretty much. When going in for cardio ablation surgery they told me what percentage of success they had as well as what the chance of failure would be. They can only go by the available data and medical journals they keep up with.

 

[Phatguysrule]

What if they only know information from outdated textbooks? That isn't nearly close to the truth nowadays with how these kids end up? Because that's where you end up with many rare disorders today.

If there is newer information the doctor will have better access to, or the means to find out about it than we do.

So you get as much info as you can and make your decision from there.

Again, much of this comes down to having a doctor you trust. And expanding access to healthcare so people aren't restricted in their choices would be the best solution there.

 

[Phatguysrule]

No. They don't test for every genetic syndrome.

That's how they found the disorders my kids carry traits for.

 

[YamTastic]

If there is newer information the doctor will have better access to, or the means to find out about it than we do.

So you get as much info as you can and make your decision from there.

Again, much of this comes down to having a doctor you trust. And expanding access to healthcare so people aren't restricted in their choices would be the best solution there.

This is where SPC has a big point: doctors are *supposed to* keep updated on techniques and knowledge in their field of specialty, but many of them slack off on that, or ignore it after learning it, preferring their gut instincts and experience over new medical knowledge. Anti-intellectualism is a disease even doctors suffer from.