Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

What's your acceptable amount of murder?

Any amount that imposed less death than it causes.

You're only still waiting because you either don't read what is posted... or your age is affecting your cognition, in which case I apologize for picking on the handicapped.

Apology accepted. My handicap is so evident that it causes you to go blind apparently
So I might conclude that your hidden answer to a yes/no question is only hidden from ME because of MY senility?
Right, it cannot be because of Emily’s dishonest reticence to provide straightforward answers to simple questions. Silly me.

There are words for people who demand answers, and once provided, refuse to answer those same questions themselves.
ASSHOLE comes to mind, but I’d never call a “lady” an asshole.
I’ll just sit here and watch her tie herself in knots trying not to express the underlying condition that causes her to want late term pregnancies to be subject to legislators.

you are BLATANTLY mischaracterizing my views.

I’m sorry for your lack of ability to express your contorted “position”. I put it down to the contortion rather than than your lack of mastery of American English.

an infant that will most likely survive outside the womb counts as a people.

Yeah yeah. Repeating that stupidity doesn’t get your fav politician out of the exam room, Emily.
He’s only there to decide if the fetus is “most likely” viable.
YOUR chosen Xpert.
If your congresscritter says it’s viable, it’s a person. Got it. Can’t trust the doctor because doctors are more likely to be on the take or ideologically driven than politicians are.
Fuck that shit Emily. Even YOU can do better.
If you can’t answer the question without the help of a politician, you can’t answer the question “is a fetus a person?” to any practical end.
Your position, in summary is “I’m too much of a weenie to commit to an answer”.

“Views” my ass.

I have answered your stupid question so many times I've lost track. Stop lying and pretending I haven't answered it. I have given you an answer many many times, in depth, with all of the reasons included.

Stop making up shit that I have never said nor implied and attributing it to me.

 

[bilby]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Was this a person?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycamore_Gap_tree

The tree was felled in the early morning of 28 September 2023 in what Northumbria Police described as "an act of vandalism". The felling of the tree led to an outpouring of anger and sadness. Two men from Cumbria, aged 38 and 31, were arrested in October 2023 and charged in April 2024 with criminal damage both to the tree and to the adjacent Hadrian's Wall.

Whether it's generally considered OK to kill something or not seems to be entirely divirced from the question of whether that thing is a person.

 

[Bomb#20]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Follow-up question: do you consider a preemie a person?

In virtually all cases yes.

And yet those exact same organisms, you would not consider to be persons, if they were enclosed by wombs instead of by ICU incubators, because then they would qualify for the "fetus" label, correct? What is it about the geometrical positioning of a womb that forestalls a different organism's personhood? And you accuse Emily of irrationality. What is your rationale for thinking personhood depends on an organism's environment rather than on its brain? Because from out here you look like you've fallen prey to a map-vs-territory fallacy.

But I do not hold to the underlying assumption that person/not person is ever a clear line.

Where did you see me or Emily make that assumption? Of course there's no clear line -- personhood is a matter of degree. So what? Flipper-vs-leg is a matter of degree too, and there was no clear line when whales were evolving from their antelope-like ancestors. Doesn't change the fact that what whales have is 100% flipper and what antelopes had was 100% leg.

The problem with what you said isn't that it's true but not worth saying; the problem with it is it isn't true!!!

Source citation please

And we're back to your odd taste for argument from authority. We are allowed to reason. You claimed the existence of metaphorical teacups orbiting Jupiter. Nobody needs a source citation to point out there are none. If you disagree, you have burden-of-proof.

No religion in the world holds that abortion should be unrestricted

Did I imply that some religion held that? No, you inferred it.

Nice snippage. What I said was "No religion in the world holds that abortion should be unrestricted in the first six months and may be restricted starting in the third trimester". And you certainly implied some religion held that. "Prime example: her irrational advocacies for laws that hurt people and benefit nobody, but comport with religious edicts." Well, the laws she's advocating for say abortion should be unrestricted in the first six months and may be restricted starting in the third trimester. And you claimed those laws "comport with religious edicts". What religious edicts would those be? You can't comport with an edict that doesn't exist. So yes, you implied there exist edicts for Emily's wished-for law to comport with. Those edicts are your teacups. You implied they exist; you have burden-of-proof to exhibit evidence for their existence.

And so what. This isn’t about religion and my observation that political advocacy for restricting abortion has religious underpinnings is totally accurate, if irrelevant.

Uh huh. The modern taste for prohibiting the killing of preemies probably has religious underpinnings too, going by the history of cultural evolution. So what? We have better reasons now for a lot of things we do than the first people to think of them had. Shall we bring back slavery because the early abolitionists had Christian motives?

Do you consider a fetus a person?
If not or not always, when would you confer personhood upon it?

This is always the root of these “quibbles” and about the third time I have asked.

Asked and answered. My perception is that I put a lot more time and thought into my replies to you than you put into yours to me. As long as that persists, I'm afraid you'll just have to wait.

 

[Politesse]

Euthanizing a terminally ill patient

This is completely illegal in the US, which is pertinent since this is by far the closest analogue to a medically necessary abortion.

How are you interpreting bilby here? Because last I checked, assisted suicide is legal in several states. So are you assuming bilby means "Oh, you're terminally ill, we get to kill you now whether you want it or not"? Because I think that would be an absurd interpretation with no basis in any reasonable context, nor indicated from bilby's posting history like ever.

It's true that some form of assisted euthanasia is legal in ten of our fifty states, and I should have noted that. Nationally, it's a very open question, and if the Court's own rulings are vulnerable, that's got nothing on issues over which no substantial ruling has yet been made.

Don't worry about bilby, he's an adult and I've never known him to get personally offended that someone disagreed with a point he made in a forum post. I also wouldn't say I disagree with him as such either, but I did want to call more attention to the problem here, and why the discussion over personhood remains one with legal teeth. I would argue that as long as a right to euthanasia is a right in only some states, and a murder charge in others, the question of legal personhood is not irrelevant to the discussion of this particular form of euthanasia.

Part of the problem with Roe was that it removed the personhood of the fetus from discussion, altogether. The ruling wasn't that a woman's right to privacy overruled whatever might be considered the rights of the fetus, but that her right to privacy precluded government involvement in the decision. The personhood of the fetus itself was not negatively or positively addressed, it was left as a future problem for a future court to resolve. You see the result; in order to challenge Roe, the Court didn't have to overturn a position on abortion as such, only challenge the much more narrow basis of the ruling in Roe. The ruling was always vulnerable to challenge, and the evangelical wing sensed that immediately. Only the roll of the dice that is our Court appointment structure and the general incompetence of conservative lawyers prevented the reversal for as long as it took.

Which is why I want an actual federal law.

On this I agree. Cowardice and corruption have captured our legislative branch, and left too many of our critical national questions unaswered or ambiguously answered. It only stokes these so-called "culture wars" in which few of the combatants are voluntary participants.

 

[pood]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Don’t we? And why are people who ask these questions “nutjobs”?

A weed, OK. But is there any good reason to kill a fish or a cow, which are sentient beings to whom we are distantly related? (We’re distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

 

[Emily Lake]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Don’t we? And why are people who ask these questions “nutjobs”?

A weed, OK. But is there any good reason to kill a fish or a cow, which are sentient beings to whom we are distantly related? (We’re distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

I will stand by my position that militant vegans are nutjobs. Fish and cows are delicious, and we've evolved to eat them.

 

[pood]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Don’t we? And why are people who ask these questions “nutjobs”?

A weed, OK. But is there any good reason to kill a fish or a cow, which are sentient beings to whom we are distantly related? (We’re distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

I will stand by my position that militant vegans are nutjobs.

This doesn’t address my question. Also, is it the militancy (for those who are militant) you object to, or the veganism? The question of militancy and veganism are decoupled from the question of whether it is justified to kill a fish or a cow.

 

[Toni]

If I may risk asking an ignorant question, what is the point of asking about personhood when that question has not been answered scientifically to any degree of certainty? Perhaps it comes down to a question of valuation, which is of course subjective. Some people value cats and dogs as persons, some don't. At some point in this thread a quote was cited that said, essentially, "A happy cat is worth more than an unhappy child" - A quote I found reprehensible quite honestly.

Do we know when a fetus becomes sentient, becomes conscious, when it starts to think, to dream, and, most importantly, when is it capable of suffering?

It's capable of suffering quite early on - fetuses experience and react to pain at around 15-ish weeks. They respond to music, to talking, etc.

For the rest... I don't know exactly. I'm not sure there's a bright line. What I do know is that a normal pregnancy is about 40 weeks, and that at 25 weeks a premie has an 80% survival rate in NICU... and a 30 week premie has a 90% survival rate without needing NICU. So pretty much, a baby born prematurely in the last trimester is very likely to survive. I have a whole lot of hesitation when it comes to terminating the life of an infant that would otherwise survive... that's where it crosses from being an abortion of a fetus to being killing a baby for me.

There are still many situations in which a termination is the most reasonable course of action, and I definitely don't want the mother to be endangered by a pregnancy. I just can't get behind having no limitations at all when it comes to a viable fetus that would survive if it were delivered prematurely at that stage.

I think you are pulling those survival rates out of your ass. My third child was delivered at 37 weeks ( history of c-sections) at the doctor’s insistence despite both of us being healthy and in zero distress and zero signs of labor and zero history of premature labor. If he had been just a couple of ounces lighter, he would have been in the NICU.

Survival rates for very premature babies has improved but not to the numbers you are claiming. Not only that but post partum preeclampsia is a serious, life threatening complication that can occur after childbirth and indeed, when mother and child have been se g home. This just happened with my daughter in law and grandchild. Fortunately she was being carefully monitored by a visiting nurse who detected an increase in bp for the baby’s mother.

While thankfully more premature infants survive, that does not mean that it’s just a few weeks in a NICU and then everything is is hunky dory. Long term health problems can persist meaning long term needs for expensive medical care, and at home care, meaning that the family needs additional resources for months to years or even permanently. Some families cope with this well. Others do not, with devastating consequences for the entire family, including other children.

I am in NO way suggesting that premature babies, including those with complex medical needs that may persist for years do not deserve that care and that chance at life.

But I take extremism umbrage at your oh so casual and dismissive that babies at 30 weeks don’t need NICU care and that they are just fine with just a little extra help. That does NOT reflect reality or the circumstances families struggle with,

 

[Politesse]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Don’t we? And why are people who ask these questions “nutjobs”?

A weed, OK. But is there any good reason to kill a fish or a cow, which are sentient beings to whom we are distantly related? (We’re distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

I will stand by my position that militant vegans are nutjobs. Fish and cows are delicious, and we've evolved to eat them.

Yes, so many fish and cows in the subsaharan woodlands of our native clime...

 

[Emily Lake]

Outside of a few nutjobs, we really don't see questions about whether or not it was justifiable to kill a weed, or a fish, or a cow.

Don’t we? And why are people who ask these questions “nutjobs”?

A weed, OK. But is there any good reason to kill a fish or a cow, which are sentient beings to whom we are distantly related? (We’re distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

I will stand by my position that militant vegans are nutjobs.

This doesn’t address my question. Also, is it the militancy (for those who are militant) you object to, or the veganism? The question of militancy and veganism are decoupled from the question of whether it is justified to kill a fish or a cow.

The militancy.

Personally, I think veganism is poorly thought out. But I also have a handful of vegan friends. They're friends, because it's their choice as adults to not eat any animal products at all (including honey, which I really don't get). But they aren't trying to force me to not eat animals, so it's all good. They can eat - or not eat - whatever they like.

It's when vegans start passing judgment on normal omnivores, and start insisting that we omnivores are bad people that I have a problem.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.

 

[Emily Lake]

First off, Toni, you're putting a whole lot of personalization in here. I get it, I understand it... but will you please keep in mind that this is a generalized discussion and it isn't about you and your personal experiences with childbirth?

If I may risk asking an ignorant question, what is the point of asking about personhood when that question has not been answered scientifically to any degree of certainty? Perhaps it comes down to a question of valuation, which is of course subjective. Some people value cats and dogs as persons, some don't. At some point in this thread a quote was cited that said, essentially, "A happy cat is worth more than an unhappy child" - A quote I found reprehensible quite honestly.

Do we know when a fetus becomes sentient, becomes conscious, when it starts to think, to dream, and, most importantly, when is it capable of suffering?

It's capable of suffering quite early on - fetuses experience and react to pain at around 15-ish weeks. They respond to music, to talking, etc.

For the rest... I don't know exactly. I'm not sure there's a bright line. What I do know is that a normal pregnancy is about 40 weeks, and that at 25 weeks a premie has an 80% survival rate in NICU... and a 30 week premie has a 90% survival rate without needing NICU. So pretty much, a baby born prematurely in the last trimester is very likely to survive. I have a whole lot of hesitation when it comes to terminating the life of an infant that would otherwise survive... that's where it crosses from being an abortion of a fetus to being killing a baby for me.

There are still many situations in which a termination is the most reasonable course of action, and I definitely don't want the mother to be endangered by a pregnancy. I just can't get behind having no limitations at all when it comes to a viable fetus that would survive if it were delivered prematurely at that stage.

I think you are pulling those survival rates out of your ass.

You can think whatever you want. Or you could look it up and challenge me that way.

Premature Baby Survival Rates

Parents of preemies are eager to learn about premature baby survival rates. This breakdown by week is a guide to what you can expect.

www.healthline.com

Babies born at 26 weeks were found to have a survival rate of 89 percent in the 2016 analysisTrusted Source and 86 percent in the 2016 cohort study.

...

What a difference a few womb weeks make! Babies born between 30 and 32 weeks, while still considered preterm, have at least a 99 percentTrusted Source chance of survival. They also have very low risk of health and development complications later on.

Now, if you'd like to lay into me for errantly typing 25 instead of 26, and for rounding DOWN on my survival estimates, by all means do so. But don't just accuse me of lying because you don't like what I said.

My third child was delivered at 37 weeks ( history of c-sections) at the doctor’s insistence despite both of us being healthy and in zero distress and zero signs of labor and zero history of premature labor. If he had been just a couple of ounces lighter, he would have been in the NICU.

Survival rates for very premature babies has improved but not to the numbers you are claiming. Not only that but post partum preeclampsia is a serious, life threatening complication that can occur after childbirth and indeed, when mother and child have been se g home. This just happened with my daughter in law and grandchild. Fortunately she was being carefully monitored by a visiting nurse who detected an increase in bp for the baby’s mother.

While thankfully more premature infants survive, that does not mean that it’s just a few weeks in a NICU and then everything is is hunky dory. Long term health problems can persist meaning long term needs for expensive medical care, and at home care, meaning that the family needs additional resources for months to years or even permanently. Some families cope with this well. Others do not, with devastating consequences for the entire family, including other children.

I am in NO way suggesting that premature babies, including those with complex medical needs that may persist for years do not deserve that care and that chance at life.

But I take extremism umbrage at your oh so casual and dismissive that babies at 30 weeks don’t need NICU care and that they are just fine with just a little extra help. That does NOT reflect reality or the circumstances families struggle with,

I did not casually or dismissively approach this. And while some may need NICU care, most do not.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's capable of suffering quite early on - fetuses experience and react to pain at around 15-ish weeks. They respond to music, to talking, etc.

No.

The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks.

Fetal Pain

Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Here are the scientific facts concerning gestational development and capacity for pain.

www.acog.org

 

[Elixir]

No religion in the world holds that abortion should be unrestricted in the first six months and may be restricted starting in the third trimester

Ok.

distantly related to weeds, too, but presumably weeds aren’t sentient. Presumably.)

They’re responsive to their environment and communicate:

“They use slow-pulsing electrical signals, often transmitted through their living cells, to share information such as distress signals about environmental stress or insect attacks. These signals are part of a broader communication system that includes chemical and hormonal messages, often facilitated by underground fungal networks known as the “Wood Wide Web”.
Electrical signals in trees are generated by changes in ion concentrations, water tension, or other physiological processes. For example, voltage changes can radiate from damaged areas to activate defense mechanisms, similar to how animals transmit sensory signals, though trees lack neurons or brains.

 

[bilby]

The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.

So are other humans.

 

[TomC]

The justification for killing a fish or a cow is that they're food which we have evolved to eat.

So are other humans.

And, once again, Emily makes a rather straight forward statement and gets bullshit in return.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

IMO, women who carry fetuses long term rarely, if ever, suddenly decide to abort for trivial reasons, as Emily claims. That their doctors would concur is even more unlikely. .

Rarely, yes. That's already been covered.

But you have literally been shown multiple cases where there was nothing medically wrong with either the mother or the fetus, and a doctor did concur with providing late term abortions.

There are always exceptions to the norm. That is not a compelling reason to legislate to prevent them.

Murder for payment is very much an exception to the norm for human behavioral interactions. I suppose you see no compelling reason to legislate to prevent that?

Murder for payment is not very much an exception. It is fairly common.

There are a LOT of laws on the books that address exceptions that are extremely rare. Like it being illegal in Alabama to drive while wearing a blindfold. In many cases, laws exist specifically because of exceptions - they exist because someone, somewhere, actually did something that nobody thought we needed a law for in the first place.

Bringing up Alabama is pretty much a losing argument. Driving while blind (natural or not) is a reasonable prohibition.

Aside: One of my close friends had to make a house rule of "you may not pee in the heater vent". It's definitely an exception, and in a perfect world that rule wouldn't have to be made... but after several weeks trying to figure out why her six-year-old son's room smelled so bad, apparently they needed a rule for that.

Cool story. Teaching someone and making it a crime are radically different concepts - or did your friend prosecute their child?

I think many in this thread understand that even though some people will choose options we don't like, it is not a good reason to prevent their choice, even when it means the death of someone else. After all, as bilby pointed out up thread, we let people kill for many reasons. Perhaps letting women get the healthcare they need for their bodies and their life is one of those reasons in this case.

I seriously don't get this insistence on ignoring actual cases in preference for feelings.

Do you see any irony there?

No, I see no irony. Especially given that I fully support women getting the health care they need for their bodies and their life. But given that I also fully support not killing people without extremely good reasons... I tend to view late pregnancy abortions when there's no medical justification as not being a good reason to kill that infant.

You are expressing a preference for your feelings.

 

[Toni]

First off, Toni, you're putting a whole lot of personalization in here. I get it, I understand it... but will you please keep in mind that this is a generalized discussion and it isn't about you and your personal experiences with childbirth?

If I may risk asking an ignorant question, what is the point of asking about personhood when that question has not been answered scientifically to any degree of certainty? Perhaps it comes down to a question of valuation, which is of course subjective. Some people value cats and dogs as persons, some don't. At some point in this thread a quote was cited that said, essentially, "A happy cat is worth more than an unhappy child" - A quote I found reprehensible quite honestly.

Do we know when a fetus becomes sentient, becomes conscious, when it starts to think, to dream, and, most importantly, when is it capable of suffering?

It's capable of suffering quite early on - fetuses experience and react to pain at around 15-ish weeks. They respond to music, to talking, etc.

For the rest... I don't know exactly. I'm not sure there's a bright line. What I do know is that a normal pregnancy is about 40 weeks, and that at 25 weeks a premie has an 80% survival rate in NICU... and a 30 week premie has a 90% survival rate without needing NICU. So pretty much, a baby born prematurely in the last trimester is very likely to survive. I have a whole lot of hesitation when it comes to terminating the life of an infant that would otherwise survive... that's where it crosses from being an abortion of a fetus to being killing a baby for me.

There are still many situations in which a termination is the most reasonable course of action, and I definitely don't want the mother to be endangered by a pregnancy. I just can't get behind having no limitations at all when it comes to a viable fetus that would survive if it were delivered prematurely at that stage.

I think you are pulling those survival rates out of your ass.

You can think whatever you want. Or you could look it up and challenge me that way.

Premature Baby Survival Rates

Parents of preemies are eager to learn about premature baby survival rates. This breakdown by week is a guide to what you can expect.

www.healthline.com

Babies born at 26 weeks were found to have a survival rate of 89 percent in the 2016 analysisTrusted Source and 86 percent in the 2016 cohort study.

...

What a difference a few womb weeks make! Babies born between 30 and 32 weeks, while still considered preterm, have at least a 99 percentTrusted Source chance of survival. They also have very low risk of health and development complications later on.

Now, if you'd like to lay into me for errantly typing 25 instead of 26, and for rounding DOWN on my survival estimates, by all means do so. But don't just accuse me of lying because you don't like what I said.

My third child was delivered at 37 weeks ( history of c-sections) at the doctor’s insistence despite both of us being healthy and in zero distress and zero signs of labor and zero history of premature labor. If he had been just a couple of ounces lighter, he would have been in the NICU.

Survival rates for very premature babies has improved but not to the numbers you are claiming. Not only that but post partum preeclampsia is a serious, life threatening complication that can occur after childbirth and indeed, when mother and child have been se g home. This just happened with my daughter in law and grandchild. Fortunately she was being carefully monitored by a visiting nurse who detected an increase in bp for the baby’s mother.

While thankfully more premature infants survive, that does not mean that it’s just a few weeks in a NICU and then everything is is hunky dory. Long term health problems can persist meaning long term needs for expensive medical care, and at home care, meaning that the family needs additional resources for months to years or even permanently. Some families cope with this well. Others do not, with devastating consequences for the entire family, including other children.

I am in NO way suggesting that premature babies, including those with complex medical needs that may persist for years do not deserve that care and that chance at life.

But I take extremism umbrage at your oh so casual and dismissive that babies at 30 weeks don’t need NICU care and that they are just fine with just a little extra help. That does NOT reflect reality or the circumstances families struggle with,

I did not casually or dismissively approach this. And while some may need NICU care, most do not.

First off, Toni, you're putting a whole lot of personalization in here. I get it, I understand it... but will you please keep in mind that this is a generalized discussion and it isn't about you and your personal experiences with childbirth?

If I may risk asking an ignorant question, what is the point of asking about personhood when that question has not been answered scientifically to any degree of certainty? Perhaps it comes down to a question of valuation, which is of course subjective. Some people value cats and dogs as persons, some don't. At some point in this thread a quote was cited that said, essentially, "A happy cat is worth more than an unhappy child" - A quote I found reprehensible quite honestly.

Do we know when a fetus becomes sentient, becomes conscious, when it starts to think, to dream, and, most importantly, when is it capable of suffering?

It's capable of suffering quite early on - fetuses experience and react to pain at around 15-ish weeks. They respond to music, to talking, etc.

For the rest... I don't know exactly. I'm not sure there's a bright line. What I do know is that a normal pregnancy is about 40 weeks, and that at 25 weeks a premie has an 80% survival rate in NICU... and a 30 week premie has a 90% survival rate without needing NICU. So pretty much, a baby born prematurely in the last trimester is very likely to survive. I have a whole lot of hesitation when it comes to terminating the life of an infant that would otherwise survive... that's where it crosses from being an abortion of a fetus to being killing a baby for me.

There are still many situations in which a termination is the most reasonable course of action, and I definitely don't want the mother to be endangered by a pregnancy. I just can't get behind having no limitations at all when it comes to a viable fetus that would survive if it were delivered prematurely at that stage.

I think you are pulling those survival rates out of your ass.

You can think whatever you want. Or you could look it up and challenge me that way.

Premature Baby Survival Rates

Parents of preemies are eager to learn about premature baby survival rates. This breakdown by week is a guide to what you can expect.

www.healthline.com

Babies born at 26 weeks were found to have a survival rate of 89 percent in the 2016 analysisTrusted Source and 86 percent in the 2016 cohort study.

...

What a difference a few womb weeks make! Babies born between 30 and 32 weeks, while still considered preterm, have at least a 99 percentTrusted Source chance of survival. They also have very low risk of health and development complications later on.

Now, if you'd like to lay into me for errantly typing 25 instead of 26, and for rounding DOWN on my survival estimates, by all means do so. But don't just accuse me of lying because you don't like what I said.

My third child was delivered at 37 weeks ( history of c-sections) at the doctor’s insistence despite both of us being healthy and in zero distress and zero signs of labor and zero history of premature labor. If he had been just a couple of ounces lighter, he would have been in the NICU.

Survival rates for very premature babies has improved but not to the numbers you are claiming. Not only that but post partum preeclampsia is a serious, life threatening complication that can occur after childbirth and indeed, when mother and child have been se g home. This just happened with my daughter in law and grandchild. Fortunately she was being carefully monitored by a visiting nurse who detected an increase in bp for the baby’s mother.

While thankfully more premature infants survive, that does not mean that it’s just a few weeks in a NICU and then everything is is hunky dory. Long term health problems can persist meaning long term needs for expensive medical care, and at home care, meaning that the family needs additional resources for months to years or even permanently. Some families cope with this well. Others do not, with devastating consequences for the entire family, including other children.

I am in NO way suggesting that premature babies, including those with complex medical needs that may persist for years do not deserve that care and that chance at life.

But I take extremism umbrage at your oh so casual and dismissive that babies at 30 weeks don’t need NICU care and that they are just fine with just a little extra help. That does NOT reflect reality or the circumstances families struggle with,

I did not casually or dismissively approach this. And while some may need NICU care, most do not.

Of course you casually dismiss the real life consequences of premature births on the child and the child’s family. You are pretty patronizing to me at the beginning of your post.

I wrote about real life, albeit very mild consequences for premature births or just pregnancy and childbirth. You can casually dismiss the real life consequences saying ‘most’ premature babies don’t need NICU as though the 40% who do is somehow trivial or without any discussion of exactly what interventions are required to allow premise to grow large enough to go home to their families, the number of medical issues, long term and short term faced by the infants —and their families. Or what kind of interventions are performed that are less intensive than NICU, or the cost involved.

Only a small portion of parents have paid parental leave. I’ve heard intelligent, well educated women hope that they would need a c-section because they’d have longer maternity leave.

 

[Elixir]

It is very misleading yo state as fact that “fetuses experience pain at 15 weeks”.
They respond to stimulae. So do planarians.

Before 24 weeks gestation, many researchers argue that fetuses cannot feel pain because the necessary thalamocortical connections in the brain are not fully developed. However, some studies suggest that pain perception might occur earlier, as early as 12–15 weeks, through subcortical structures like the thalamus and cortical subplate, which may mediate pain independently of the cortex.
• Observable responses: Fetuses exhibit stress responses (e.g., hormonal changes, body movements) to invasive procedures as early as 15–16 weeks. These responses are reduced with anesthesia, suggesting sensitivity to noxious stimuli.
• Scientific uncertainty: The subjective experience of pain requires consciousness, which remains difficult to assess in fetuses. Some researchers recommend erring on the side of caution by using anesthesia for fetal procedures regardless of gestational age.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is very misleading yo state as fact that “fetuses experience pain at 15 weeks”.
They respond to stimulae. So do planarians.

Before 24 weeks gestation, many researchers argue that fetuses cannot feel pain because the necessary thalamocortical connections in the brain are not fully developed. However, some studies suggest that pain perception might occur earlier, as early as 12–15 weeks, through subcortical structures like the thalamus and cortical subplate, which may mediate pain independently of the cortex.
• Observable responses: Fetuses exhibit stress responses (e.g., hormonal changes, body movements) to invasive procedures as early as 15–16 weeks. These responses are reduced with anesthesia, suggesting sensitivity to noxious stimuli.
• Scientific uncertainty: The subjective experience of pain requires consciousness, which remains difficult to assess in fetuses. Some researchers recommend erring on the side of caution by using anesthesia for fetal procedures regardless of gestational age.

Again, it's a red herring. It doesn't really matter whether it feels pain as to whether or not we allow someone to refuse consent in offering their body up to the thing.

Pain is, in its most general form, "that which discourages a learning system from repeating actions".

As you note, this describes planarians.

Ideally, we should generally form habits which lead us to refrain from offering such discouraging impulses disconnected from any action it could take.

Nothing living seems to like being changed by some outside thing for no apparent reason. Such is considered, widely, to be "cruelty*".

The response to this knowledge is, I think, to be as merciful as possible even to something acting directly as an obligate parasite to an unconsenting host. This doesn't mean capitulation, but it does mean being as kind as possible in the eviction.

Fetal pain is not an argument to not abort. At best it's an argument to abort as mercifully as possible.

*Unless the change aligns it to its pre-existing goals more effectively over time.

 

[bilby]

Only a small portion of parents have paid parental leave. I’ve heard intelligent, well educated women hope that they would need a c-section because they’d have longer maternity leave.

The USA really is a terrible place in so many ways. It is unthinkable here that parents might not have paid parental leave.