Roe v Wade is on deck

[Shadowy Man]

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.

There are states in the USA that do have it. I myself have partaken of state sponsored paid leave.

 

[Politesse]

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.

It's not so bad, you just have to get used to the culture. Specifically, that we hate children. You can walk out on to any American street and meet someone who is really mad that poor kids are given lunches at school. They're supposed to just sit there in the corner and cry for an hour, dammit!

 

[Toni]

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.

Judgement is one thing. Laws are another. You are advocating for laws that impose your beliefs regarding fetal rights on those who do not agree with them —and have to suffer the consequences, including death. Talk about militant!

 

[Toni]

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.

There are states in the USA that do have it. I myself have partaken of state sponsored paid leave.

My employer at the time of my first pregnancy created a parental leave policy specifically for me as the situation of a pregnant employee had never arisen before. That policy (6 weeks paid leave) is still the best that most women get, decades later. Including those who work in health care.

My husband, as part of his union, fought for and obtained better parental leave for employees that was later adopted by the state for all state employees.

 

[pood]

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

We don’t have to eat meat, and it would actually be much better for the environment if we did not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

We don’t have to eat meat, and it would actually be much better for the environment if we did not.

This is a ridiculous derail and should end.

The question for Emily Lake is why should a fetus be required to be viable outside the womb to have protections? It is such an odd standard, as the viability of survival outside the womb is explicitly influenced by the medical care available. And the line for viability has pushed back over the decades. If we could, in theory, manage to save fetuses as early as 3 months into development through scientific gains, are fetuses that are 3 months old now people?

 

[Elixir]

are fetuses that are 3 months old now people?

If your elected official sez they’re “viable” then they are people in Emilyworld.
If the doctor disagrees and acts on their professional opinion, they may be jailed.
That’s fucked up.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Ah, the irony.

 

[WAB]

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

Ah, the irony.

Not so much. Emily has been misrepresented and misinterpreted several times in the thread. People are acting as if she's in her evil lair squatting and eating flies, scheming about how she can cause trauma to women and possibly let them bleed out in parking lots.

 

[Toni]

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

Ah, the irony.

Not so much. Emily has been misrepresented and misinterpreted several times in the thread. People are acting as if she's in her evil lair squatting and eating flies, scheming about how she can cause trauma to women and possibly let them bleed out in parking lots.

I think Emily is pretty fuzzy on some details and is either not well informed or is being somewhat disingenuous in some of her assertions, and seems to lack any consideration for the real life consequences for women facing an unwanted pregnancy or one that threatens their life/health. Which is why I’ve shared so much personal info in this thread. For one thing, she seems to see ‘elective’ abortions as undertaken on a whim, without accurately representing what the term elective means as a medical term. And she seems extraordinarily dismissive about the real life everyday challenges of caring for a premature infant. Or an infant.

I absolutely understand that reasonable people can have very different beliefs about abortion rights. I respect everyone’s right to their own opinion, and hope that it is based on facts not emotion. My own opinions have changed with regards to abortion over the years from being pretty much against it except in cases of rape or to save the mother’s life to believing that people should get to make their own medical decisions_within the bounds of medical ethics and best and safe practices.

Too often women are bullied and coerced into care they do not want while pregnant, denied care and assistance they want and need, are judged for making decisions, sometimes jailed to ensure they deliver a baby, sometimes laboring while in shackles, sometimes forced to have c-sections they don’t want and sometimes denied c-sections they do want. Same thing with various birth control methods.

These are not issues men face when seeking medical care or attempting to control their own fertility. Not should they be.

They are not issues any competent adult should face when seeking medical care.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Ah, the irony.

Not so much. Emily has been misrepresented and misinterpreted several times in the thread. People are acting as if she's in her evil lair squatting and eating flies, scheming about how she can cause trauma to women and possibly let them bleed out in parking lots.

You missed my point. I made no observation about Emily.

 

[Toni]

No, it's just a requirement. You can't be one unless you decide to be one.

This is retarded. I know, that's not PC, we're not supposed to use that term any more, but I seriously can't come up with a better word to express how completely devoid of reason and sense and basic cognitive ability this argument is.

If your definition were true... then it would mean that a person in a coma isn't a person, that their personhood is revoked. Hell, it would mean that when you're high as a kite on whatever enebriant you prefer, we can all revoke your personhood because you're cognitively unable to consent to being a person.

And just to put the cherry on top of the retardistry cupcake... it would also mean that nobody ever gets to be a person until they're asked about whether they want to be a person.

So yeah. This is nuts.

A person who is in a coma may recover. Or, depending on their prospects for recovery and any stated ( legally) wishes re: prolonging life when mechanical assistance is required and yet are unable to make their wishes known, life support may be removed, even when death is certain and imminent without continued medical intervention. Likewise, in other situations, life sustaining care may be discontinued at the patient’s request if they are able or at the family’s request when there is no hope for recovery. Indeed, as tragic as this always is, it is even more tragic when parents must make those decisions for beloved children ( or parents, siblings, partners but I think it’s most tragic when It’s a child. I have not made that decision for a child but close friends have had to do so.

Late term abortions are rare and almost always involve a hopeless outcome for the child —and dire consequences for the mother if the pregnancy continues.

I’ve been very fortunate, my only miscarriage was very early but a sister and at least one close friend lost pregnancies at 5+ months. Very very much harder than my early miscarriage. And I have had friends who lost a child in childbirth, and of SIDS, a toddler, a teenager. I would not wish any of that on my worst enemy.

I am certain there are women and girls who are less invested in their pregnancies and who experience more relief than grief when a pregnancy is terminated. Not everyone experiences the same feelings or shows their feelings to others. But every pregnancy that ends carries with it physical consequences, recovery, abruptly changing hormones, blood loss and more. Post partum depression is common and can be long lasting and severe.


I don’t think this is how you actually feel but you are coming across as quite indifferent t to what women —and girls-go through when they are pregnant, no matter how that pregnancy ends.

 

[Toni]

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.

What the difference is between a fetus in the womb and a neonate is : certainty. We like to believe that every healthy pregnancy results in a healthy baby —and healthy mom. Unfortunately that is not the case, even in ideal circumstances. Things can go horribly wrong during labor and delivery and not every fetus lives.

 

[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.
...

What the difference is between a fetus in the womb and a neonate is : certainty.

There's no certainty for a neonate in the NICU either. Or even for an apparently healthy full-term infant at home asleep in a crib.

We like to believe that every healthy pregnancy results in a healthy baby —and healthy mom. Unfortunately that is not the case, even in ideal circumstances. Things can go horribly wrong during labor and delivery and not every fetus lives.

True; but what's your point? If you're arguing we should allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy late-term fetus because he's still a threat to her life and health, and an abortion is safer for her than labor and delivery, that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but it doesn't bear on the issue Elixir and I were talking about -- whether that fetus is a person. As bilby is so fond of pointing out, there are lots of circumstances that can make it permissible to kill a person.

 

[ZiprHead]

There's no certainty for a neonate in the NICU either. Or even for an apparently healthy full-term infant at home asleep in a crib.

Not to mention million dollar hospital bills for months of neonatal ICU care. That's the kind of thing that totally destroys families.

 

[Toni]

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.
...

What the difference is between a fetus in the womb and a neonate is : certainty.

There's no certainty for a neonate in the NICU either. Or even for an apparently healthy full-term infant at home asleep in a crib.

We like to believe that every healthy pregnancy results in a healthy baby —and healthy mom. Unfortunately that is not the case, even in ideal circumstances. Things can go horribly wrong during labor and delivery and not every fetus lives.

True; but what's your point? If you're arguing we should allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy late-term fetus because he's still a threat to her life and health, and an abortion is safer for her than labor and delivery, that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but it doesn't bear on the issue Elixir and I were talking about -- whether that fetus is a person. As bilby is so fond of pointing out, there are lots of circumstances that can make it permissible to kill a person.

Ok: A fetus is not a separate person until it is born and separate from the mother’s body,

In any pregnancy which is intended to be carried until term ( or as close as possible) any medical intervention or care plan for mother or fetus affects both and is designed and delivered with that fact in mind.

Occasionally a fetus might require a surgical intervention, a repair of some vital organ or structure, in order to survive until birth. But the mother has to consent. Occasionally in the case of a pregnancy with multiple fetuses, one may die in utero and if it it is not removed, the other fetus(es) and the mother could die. Removing the dead fetus endangers the living fetus. Sometimes in the case of multiples, a selective reduction of embryos is carried out early in the pregnancy. This is done to improve the survival changes of any remaining embryo. Or sometimes because only one embryo is desired. The risks of pregnancy increase dramatically with multiple fetuses, and the risk to health of any fetus—and the mother.

 

[Elixir]

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.
...

What the difference is between a fetus in the womb and a neonate is : certainty.

There's no certainty for a neonate in the NICU either. Or even for an apparently healthy full-term infant at home asleep in a crib.

We like to believe that every healthy pregnancy results in a healthy baby —and healthy mom. Unfortunately that is not the case, even in ideal circumstances. Things can go horribly wrong during labor and delivery and not every fetus lives.

True; but what's your point? If you're arguing we should allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy late-term fetus because he's still a threat to her life and health, and an abortion is safer for her than labor and delivery, that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but it doesn't bear on the issue Elixir and I were talking about -- whether that fetus is a person. As bilby is so fond of pointing out, there are lots of circumstances that can make it permissible to kill a person.

Ok: A fetus is not a separate person until it is born and separate from the mother’s body,

In any pregnancy which is intended to be carried until term ( or as close as possible) any medical intervention or care plan for mother or fetus affects both and is designed and delivered with that fact in mind.

Occasionally a fetus might require a surgical intervention, a repair of some vital organ or structure, in order to survive until birth. But the mother has to consent. Occasionally in the case of a pregnancy with multiple fetuses, one may die in utero and if it it is not removed, the other fetus(es) and the mother could die. Removing the dead fetus endangers the living fetus. Sometimes in the case of multiples, a selective reduction of embryos is carried out early in the pregnancy. This is done to improve the survival changes of any remaining embryo. Or sometimes because only one embryo is desired. The risks of pregnancy increase dramatically with multiple fetuses, and the risk to health of any fetus—and the mother.

Very good points.

I’m sure our legislators know what to do in all those situations. /s

What is it about the geometrical positioning of a womb that forestalls a different organism's personhood?

If anything “forestalls” it, that would be the parasitic relationship that is operational with a fetus and is not with a preemie in an incubator.

 

[Bomb#20]

True; but what's your point? If you're arguing we should allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy late-term fetus because he's still a threat to her life and health, and an abortion is safer for her than labor and delivery, that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but it doesn't bear on the issue Elixir and I were talking about -- whether that fetus is a person. As bilby is so fond of pointing out, there are lots of circumstances that can make it permissible to kill a person.

Ok: A fetus is not a separate person until it is born and separate from the mother’s body,

Do you mean it's not a person, or do you mean it's a non-separate person?

In any pregnancy <recitation of familiar facts snipped>

Is there some conclusion you're arguing for?

Sometimes in the case of multiples, a selective reduction of embryos is carried out early in the pregnancy. This is done to improve the survival changes of any remaining embryo. Or sometimes because only one embryo is desired. The risks of pregnancy increase dramatically with multiple fetuses, and the risk to health of any fetus—and the mother.

Just to clarify, I'm talking about late-term fetuses. As far as I've seen, nobody active in the thread has raised any objection to anything a mother does early in the pregnancy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.
...

What the difference is between a fetus in the womb and a neonate is : certainty.

There's no certainty for a neonate in the NICU either. Or even for an apparently healthy full-term infant at home asleep in a crib.

We like to believe that every healthy pregnancy results in a healthy baby —and healthy mom. Unfortunately that is not the case, even in ideal circumstances. Things can go horribly wrong during labor and delivery and not every fetus lives.

True; but what's your point? If you're arguing we should allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy late-term fetus because he's still a threat to her life and health, and an abortion is safer for her than labor and delivery, that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make...

Is it? Fetuses that are a "threat" generally aren't viable. You are presenting a risk argument about whether labor is riskier than abortion, but aren't including anything in the calculus regarding the viability of the fetus. That isn't a risk assessment, it is an assessment of negligence.

 

[Elixir]

Fetuses that are a "threat" generally aren't viable

ALL fetuses are a threat. Some more so than others.

That isn't a risk assessment, it is an assessment of negligence.

I agree.

If you're arguing we should allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy late-term fetus

Cue visions of coat hangers. Usually that job would be assigned to a doctor. A doctor who does that should be subject to civil penalties IMHO.