Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes

[Isolder74]

Do you even have the remotest hint of a clue to why your analogy is so fatally flawed? What part of your incessant babble about your inabilitiy to live the Ted Kaczynski lifestyle has any relevance to medical fact regarding the difference between yourself, an adult human being existing independently of a parent organism biologically, and a non-viable fetus unable to survive even a few minutes outside the womb? Are you really that far gone that you can't tell the difference?

All you keep saying is that dying a few minutes without support is the same as dying in a few months without support. How does that invalidate my analogy - that viability is a poor test of person hood because even born people require support from the rest of society?

I think the point is the fact you don't drop dead the moment you are tossed onto the street goes right over your head? You are not going to die within minutes of that happening unless you are in Chicago in the middle of January. Months alive demonstrate your body's fevered attempt to keep you alive as long as possible until something to eat you manage to find.

Needing support from society is not the same as not being able to live at all.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I think the point is the fact you don't drop dead the moment you are tossed onto the street goes right over your head? You are not going to die within minutes of that happening unless you are in Chicago in the middle of January. Months alive demonstrate your body's fevered attempt to keep you alive as long as possible until something to eat you manage to find.

Needing support from society is not the same as not being able to live at all.

Ugh, I guess now that I think about it more no one is technically viable in the long run, especially in bad environments. So I'm going to concede the point.

I'm going to have to go and rethink my position on abortion - you guys have given me a lot to think about.

[Patrick Degan]

Do you even have the remotest hint of a clue to why your analogy is so fatally flawed? What part of your incessant babble about your inabilitiy to live the Ted Kaczynski lifestyle has any relevance to medical fact regarding the difference between yourself, an adult human being existing independently of a parent organism biologically, and a non-viable fetus unable to survive even a few minutes outside the womb? Are you really that far gone that you can't tell the difference?

All you keep saying is that dying a few minutes without support is the same as dying in a few months without support. How does that invalidate my analogy - that viability is a poor test of person hood because even born people require support from the rest of society?

Either you are too stupid to comprehend the answer which has been force-fed to you multiple times in this and other threads, or you are too dishonest to admit you're carrying on a broken argument. I grow tired of your endless bullshit, so I will make this succinct.

I am NOT AT ALL SAYING: "dying a few minutes without support (non-viable fetus)" = "dying a few months without support (lone adult supposedly cut off from all society in a situation which doesn't happen in any real world). That is your invention entirely and one which shows you to be an outright liar.

Oh, did that sting? Too bad. Just keep lying and strawmandering and see if you get a different reaction.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Oh, did that sting? Too bad. Just keep lying and strawmandering and see if you get a different reaction.

No, but I do concede the point. You're right.

[Lusankya]

See, I quite imagine that if men had to experience some of the issues associated with childbirth, the education would not be this:

Doctor: "Oh, yes, a collapsed vagina sometimes occurs after pregnancy. Didn't you know that?"

It would be more like this:

Giant billboard: Pregnancy may make your penis IMPLODE!!!! See a doctor about your options today.

[Cairber]

Another thought on pregnancy complications to go along with collapsed vaginas:

One of my best friends gave birth not too long ago and suffered complete uterine prolapse. I believe her exact words were "nothing can prepare you forget seeing your uterus outside your body and nothing will make me forget them stuffing it back in."

[Cairber]

ops accidentally hit reply too soon:


There's also stuff like iron deficiency since the fetus basically takes your stores and the extra blood makes it hard to maintain your iron levels, hair falling out, weird hormonal swings, lots of pressure on the heart. gestational diabetes They all may seem like small things, but they are all pretty common complications of pregnancy and, added together, can lead to some serious problems.


oh, and line in above post should read "nothing can prepare you or make you forget..."

[Darth Wong]

I'm going to have to go and rethink my position on abortion - you guys have given me a lot to think about.

You never thought out your position on abortion in the first place, moron. Every time you have ever posted on the subject, you have been reduced to weaseling out of the conundrums you got yourself into.

[CaptainZoidberg]

You never thought out your position on abortion in the first place, moron. Every time you have ever posted on the subject, you have been reduced to weaseling out of the conundrums you got yourself into.

Agreed. And if you don't mind me asking, what is your position? If I recall correctly it was to make it completely legal before the third trimester, with some restrictions for late term abortions.

[Eris]

As an addendum to this, it seems that a lot of people, not just Zoidberg, don't quite understand what it means for a fetus to be viable, and even some who don't go so far as to talk about 18 year olds being not viable are still missing the point with babies and their supposed inviability.

When dealing with whether or not a fetus is inviable, you need more than for it just to be incapable of surviving on its own - a baby might die after a very short time of inattention, but it's still viable. A fetus is inviable when it cannot carry out its own bodily functions, not when it cannot support itself. Hence my earlier example about surfactant: a baby is physiologically capable of carrying out the processes related to the production and maintenance of surfactant in the lungs, while many fetuses are not, and consequently cannot carry out many vital actions, like breathing, and thus cannot survive without massive medical intervention. And even then they many times die, and almost always have severe developmental problems - the saving of early births is a very recent and still very costly and iffy business.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As an addendum to this, it seems that a lot of people, not just Zoidberg, don't quite understand what it means for a fetus to be viable, and even some who don't go so far as to talk about 18 year olds being not viable are still missing the point with babies and their supposed inviability.

When dealing with whether or not a fetus is inviable, you need more than for it just to be incapable of surviving on its own - a baby might die after a very short time of inattention, but it's still viable. A fetus is inviable when it cannot carry out its own bodily functions, not when it cannot support itself. Hence my earlier example about surfactant: a baby is physiologically capable of carrying out the processes related to the production and maintenance of surfactant in the lungs, while many fetuses are not, and consequently cannot carry out many vital actions, like breathing, and thus cannot survive without massive medical intervention. And even then they many times die, and almost always have severe developmental problems - the saving of early births is a very recent and still very costly and iffy business.

This is a major point. We dont really have a problem getting babies adopted in the US. But it is an important ethical question. If a woman seeks an induced birth as a non-lethal alternative to abortion for late term fetuses, there needs to be someone there to

A) Justify the cost. Because the fetus is not, at least under my definition, even if viable a "person" at stages where this is a problem (few weeks premature is one thing... induced birth at 26 weeks is another) The utility of the equipment, medication, and manhours actually outweighs the utility of the continued life of the fetus, unless there is someone who actually cares about the fetus.

B) take care of the resulting developed baby. It is flat out cruel to put a fetus through all that, and then put it in foster care. It is more merciful to kill it than have it suffer that fate.

[Surlethe]

See, I quite imagine that if men had to experience some of the issues associated with childbirth, the education would not be this: ...

It is difficult for me to really grasp the magnitude of the issues associated with pregnancy and childbirth, and I suspect that the same is true for most men, especially those who have not seen a wife (or mother) go through it. There is really no experience remotely comparable to pregnancy in a typical man's life, which is probably why Zoidberg doesn't understand the commitment pregnancy requires and the harm it causes to a woman.

[Spin Echo]

As an addendum to this, it seems that a lot of people, not just Zoidberg, don't quite understand what it means for a fetus to be viable, and even some who don't go so far as to talk about 18 year olds being not viable are still missing the point with babies and their supposed inviability.

When dealing with whether or not a fetus is inviable, you need more than for it just to be incapable of surviving on its own - a baby might die after a very short time of inattention, but it's still viable. A fetus is inviable when it cannot carry out its own bodily functions, not when it cannot support itself. Hence my earlier example about surfactant: a baby is physiologically capable of carrying out the processes related to the production and maintenance of surfactant in the lungs, while many fetuses are not, and consequently cannot carry out many vital actions, like breathing, and thus cannot survive without massive medical intervention. And even then they many times die, and almost always have severe developmental problems - the saving of early births is a very recent and still very costly and iffy business.

This is a major point. We dont really have a problem getting babies adopted in the US. But it is an important ethical question. If a woman seeks an induced birth as a non-lethal alternative to abortion for late term fetuses, there needs to be someone there to

A) Justify the cost. Because the fetus is not, at least under my definition, even if viable a "person" at stages where this is a problem (few weeks premature is one thing... induced birth at 26 weeks is another) The utility of the equipment, medication, and manhours actually outweighs the utility of the continued life of the fetus, unless there is someone who actually cares about the fetus.

B) take care of the resulting developed baby. It is flat out cruel to put a fetus through all that, and then put it in foster care. It is more merciful to kill it than have it suffer that fate.

Don't forget that they often can't use any sort of anesthetic on really premature babies because they are so fragile such that they have to go through all sorts of surgeries without any sort of pain killer. This is why those religious people who use fertility drugs to conceive sextuplets and then refuse to selectively abort the numbers down to a reasonable number really piss me off. They are almost guaranteeing the babies will need to go through surgeries without pain killers.

[Darth Wong]

You never thought out your position on abortion in the first place, moron. Every time you have ever posted on the subject, you have been reduced to weaseling out of the conundrums you got yourself into.

Agreed. And if you don't mind me asking, what is your position? If I recall correctly it was to make it completely legal before the third trimester, with some restrictions for late term abortions.

My position is that personhood is defined by "I think therefore I am". I've explained this to you in the past. It is only your obstinate stupidity which keeps you from grasping it.

[MKSheppard]

Planned Parenthood closed its doors after their abortionists, who are flown in from other states, refused to work under the new law.

Hum. Haven't commented on this until now, but I will do so now.

So this new law is...

The law orders abortionists to inform patients of the humanity of their babies and that the procedure could affect their mental health two hours before the abortion is set to be performed.

The law also provides that abortionists can be sued if they do not comply.

You know that's remarkably easy to do, and you can even read it off a script on a sheet in a monotone.

The doctors are just being dicks and trying to score political brownie points here.

[Patrick Degan]

Planned Parenthood closed its doors after their abortionists, who are flown in from other states, refused to work under the new law.

Hum. Haven't commented on this until now, but I will do so now.

So this new law is...

The law orders abortionists to inform patients of the humanity of their babies and that the procedure could affect their mental health two hours before the abortion is set to be performed.

The law also provides that abortionists can be sued if they do not comply.

You know that's remarkably easy to do, and you can even read it off a script on a sheet in a monotone.

The doctors are just being dicks and trying to score political brownie points here.

No, the intent of the law is to put an additional barrier of legalism upon the practise, which would also affect the clinic's insurance rates, causing them to skyrocket. The second part of the law opens the door for any number of nuisance suits by Christian Taliban types who would claim the clinic was not in compliance. The whole deal is designed to force the clinic out of business, which it apparently has done.

[Surlethe]

Mr Degan has hit the nail right on the head. This is essentially a successful attempt to circumvent the ban on outright illegalization. In that sense, it's a lot like Jim Crow laws: designed to make being X nearly intolerable while not outright forcing X to comply to standard Y. In the case of Jim Crow, X is being black while Y is slavery; in this thread, X is abortion while Y is banning.

At the end of the day, it's really just a way for anti-choicers to practically ban abortion (in the fullest sense of "practically") while still being able to say, with a straight face, "We didn't ban it."

[MKSheppard]

No, the intent of the law is to put an additional barrier of legalism upon the practise, which would also affect the clinic's insurance rates, causing them to skyrocket.

And what? You seem to think that complying with that law requires absurd accomodations, when all it takes is an additional sheet of paper that the patient has to sign two hours before the procedure.

In fact, the one major impact of such a law would be that the speed of abortions would be slowed down from a what, 15-30 minute procedure to a 2.5 hour procedure.

Now, if this was in a high traffic area, the doctors might have a point about their protest; but this is South Dakota ass crack of nowhere -- so remote the doctors fly in to do the procedures.

I really can't find it in myself to get worked up over a bunch of doctors acting like twits over what is essentially a 2 hour "waiting period".

[Eulogy]

Mr Degan has hit the nail right on the head. This is essentially a successful attempt to circumvent the ban on outright illegalization. In that sense, it's a lot like Jim Crow laws: designed to make being X nearly intolerable while not outright forcing X to comply to standard Y. In the case of Jim Crow, X is being black while Y is slavery; in this thread, X is abortion while Y is banning.

At the end of the day, it's really just a way for anti-choicers to practically ban abortion (in the fullest sense of "practically") while still being able to say, with a straight face, "We didn't ban it."

It also forces the doctors (yes, I say doctors, NOT "abortionists", so any crackmonkey assgreased pawns reading this should just sodomize thenselves with car batteries ) to literally lie about the situation - it makes them say that unthinking embryoes are real human beings, and casting off the saddle of unwanted kids is somehow bad for their well-being.

Expect a big increase in crime and out of state "sightseeing".

[Patrick Degan]

No, the intent of the law is to put an additional barrier of legalism upon the practise, which would also affect the clinic's insurance rates, causing them to skyrocket.

And what? You seem to think that complying with that law requires absurd accomodations, when all it takes is an additional sheet of paper that the patient has to sign two hours before the procedure.

I see you do not grasp the concept here. The problem is not with the actual nominal requirements of the law, but how the law is crafted to a) force the clinic to take on additional malpractise insurance and legal expenses, and b) opens the door for anti-abortion activists to jam the clinic up with nuisance lawsuits.

In fact, the one major impact of such a law would be that the speed of abortions would be slowed down from a what, 15-30 minute procedure to a 2.5 hour procedure.

It is not my fault that you have the understanding of a gerbil where it comes to using the law as a bludgeon instead of a shield, which is the object of the South Dakota legislature in this case.

Now, if this was in a high traffic area, the doctors might have a point about their protest; but this is South Dakota ass crack of nowhere -- so remote the doctors fly in to do the procedures.

The doctors do have a point: the law as crafted is aimed at an operation of limited financial means, making their operation impossible while not actually declaring it illegal, which is a constitutional no-no. The other effect is clearly aimed at denying women their constitutional rights by doing an end-run around Roe v. Wade. Once more, it it not my fault that you are unable to grasp this.

I really can't find it in myself to get worked up over a bunch of doctors acting like twits over what is essentially a 2 hour "waiting period".

That's because you lack the ability to actually follow a chain of logic.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, the intent of the law is to put an additional barrier of legalism upon the practise, which would also affect the clinic's insurance rates, causing them to skyrocket.

And what? You seem to think that complying with that law requires absurd accomodations, when all it takes is an additional sheet of paper that the patient has to sign two hours before the procedure.

In fact, the one major impact of such a law would be that the speed of abortions would be slowed down from a what, 15-30 minute procedure to a 2.5 hour procedure.

Now, if this was in a high traffic area, the doctors might have a point about their protest; but this is South Dakota ass crack of nowhere -- so remote the doctors fly in to do the procedures.

I really can't find it in myself to get worked up over a bunch of doctors acting like twits over what is essentially a 2 hour "waiting period".

Its funny, because you completely ignore the post that you replied to. This is not the doctors bitching. It is a vehicle to drive up insurance rates and malpractice/non-compliance suits. Even if they are baseless, the doctors still have to spend money defending themselves. Anti-choicers did the same thing at ASU when the University made them buy insurance for their 30 ft tall signs with pictures of aborted fetuses. They filed 1st amendment suits.[/i]