Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

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.

I'm not presenting an argument at all; I'm just trying to understand Toni's argument and what it has to do with my post. Note that "legitimate argument" doesn't necessarily mean "winning argument" -- assuming I've even paraphrased her correctly, she still has to show her work, and we still get to weigh her argument in the balance against equally legitimate counterarguments.

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

Sorry, I don't know what that means. Whose negligence are you talking about and what was he or she supposed to do?

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

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

^^^^ This. ^^^^.

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.

If somebody tells me to fix my car I'll take him to mean I should pay someone competent to do it for me, not that I should try to bang the dent out by myself.

A doctor who does that should be subject to civil penalties IMHO.

A doctor who does what? Aborts a healthy late-term fetus when its healthy mother pays her to? Or does it with a coat hanger?

 

[Toni]

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.

I'm not presenting an argument at all; I'm just trying to understand Toni's argument and what it has to do with my post. Note that "legitimate argument" doesn't necessarily mean "winning argument" -- assuming I've even paraphrased her correctly, she still has to show her work, and we still get to weigh her argument in the balance against equally legitimate counterarguments.

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

Sorry, I don't know what that means. Whose negligence are you talking about and what was he or she supposed to do?

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

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

^^^^ This. ^^^^.

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.

If somebody tells me to fix my car I'll take him to mean I should pay someone competent to do it for me, not that I should try to bang the dent out by myself.

A doctor who does that should be subject to civil penalties IMHO.

A doctor who does what? Aborts a healthy late-term fetus when its healthy mother pays her to? Or does it with a coat hanger?

Sure sure but no one is shutting down your access to competent, trained mechanics or threatening you or your mechanic if you need services or just want to get an estimate. No one is saying that you only have a right to repairs if your vehicle is a recent model or was damaged in an accident at which you were in no way at fault.

My point is that a fetus is not a separate individual until it leaves the womb. Am I dodging the word person here? Well, I’m not interested in playing semantics. I’m interested in ensuring safe, affordable and readily accessible health care for everyone, including women. That can and does include abortion care when desired.

I have not read every post in this thread and have not located the posts in which Emily provides evidence that women in their final trimester seek abortions for non-medical necessity type reasons. If someone would like to tell me the post number, I’ll read it. What I did do earlier is to write about what the term ‘elective’ actually means in medical parlance.

 

[Elixir]

A doctor who does what? Aborts a healthy late-term fetus when its healthy mother pays her to?

If she can find one still practicing, I guess so.
If the doc bears personal civil liability for needless late term abortions, it might weed out the few who would do it “just for the money”.
I think this hypothetical woman is crazy, drugged, depressed or otherwise impaired. No doctor with any decency would cater to her in the first place.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

So are other humans.

For Papua New Guineans perhaps, but for the vast majority not so much.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Define "common"...

 

[Elixir]

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

So are other humans.

For Papua New Guineans perhaps, but for the vast majority not so much.

Ya get them hungry enough and that majority, if it still exists, won’t be so vast.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

1) What on earth makes you think I've casually dismissed the consequences of premature birth?
2) What makes you think I believe premature births are trivial?
3) What does parental leave have to do with any of this discussion?
and...
4) Do you feel that the fact that some premature births need NICU and it's tough on them and their families *supports* the idea that premies should just be killed instead?

You're accusing me of being dismissive of premies, and you've no reason at all to do so. You've taken my actual posts, you've personified them based on your personal experiences and the emotional toll those took on you, and then you're extrapolating to an entirely different discussion altogether. If you'd like to discuss the challenges of having a premie, and what's involved in a neonate stay, I'm happy to do so - elsewhere. But unless you're taking the position that premature births being expensive and difficult is a reason to support killing premies... I honestly don't know why you're bringing this up.

 

[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.

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!

Alright, be specific please. Exactly what law do you feel I'm advocating for? Are you quite certain that the consequence of my position is death?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

It would also be better for the environment if we just exterminated all ruminants.

It wouldn't be better for *us*, nor for any other predator that has evolved to eat those ruminants. But like I said - as an adult you can choose not to eat meat or animal products if you don't want to. It's another thing entirely to insist that no humans should eat the foods we've evolved to eat.

And it's something completely different if you try to force a cat to have a vegan diet.

 

[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.

For Papua New Guineans perhaps, but for the vast majority not so much.

Are you seeking to imply that the people of Papua New Guinea evolved separately to the rest of humanity?

Or are you just averse to explicitly admitting that your statement has been shown to be mistaken?

Clearly there must be other justifications for eating meat than our evolutionary history, which is demonstrably irrelevant.

That eating certain kinds of meat is frowned upon (whether that is human meat, or horse meat, or any other species meat) is completely unrelated to our evolved capacity to digest and even thrive upon a diet of that kind of meat.

Humans can eat the meat of any mammal (including humans), most fish, many reptiles, and most avians. This tells us exactly zip about whether eating any of these is justified.

I have no doubt that I could, if justified, survive by eating human, or rat, or snake; I equally have no doubt that I would need some pretty extreme justification for doing so, well beyond my mere evolved capacity to do so.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

The reason is that it's the best, most reasonable balance point I can find. I refuse to fall victim to the heap fallacy. Early in the pregnancy, a fetus is a collection of cells that has the potential to become human, but isn't there yet. Late in the pregnancy, it's not just a fetus, it's a baby - and as such, there ought to be very good medically necessary reasons to terminate it. There's not some dictate handed down from a mythical sky daddy to say when it changes from a pre-human to a human. It's a bit of a range. Viability seems to be a pragmatic place to draw the line.

If you'd like to discuss exactly when that line should be drawn, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the idea that no line can ever be drawn - and that includes both sides of this debate. I am not supportive of no line because it's a baby from conception. I'm also not supportive of no line because it's never anything more than a parasite until it is magically granted personhood by the doctor's hands or the magical essence of mommy's vagina.

 

[Elixir]

Just to interject; “the environment” doesn’t give a shit. People do.
For the development and prosperity of HHS, the Chixilub impact event was “good for the environment” when it occurred. If it happened today, the same event would be “very bad for the environment”, I.e. people.

 

[Toni]

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.

1) What on earth makes you think I've casually dismissed the consequences of premature birth?
2) What makes you think I believe premature births are trivial?
3) What does parental leave have to do with any of this discussion?
and...
4) Do you feel that the fact that some premature births need NICU and it's tough on them and their families *supports* the idea that premies should just be killed instead?

You're accusing me of being dismissive of premies, and you've no reason at all to do so. You've taken my actual posts, you've personified them based on your personal experiences and the emotional toll those took on you, and then you're extrapolating to an entirely different discussion altogether. If you'd like to discuss the challenges of having a premie, and what's involved in a neonate stay, I'm happy to do so - elsewhere. But unless you're taking the position that premature births being expensive and difficult is a reason to support killing premies... I honestly don't know why you're bringing this up.

Where have I suggested that premies should be killed?

 

[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.

For Papua New Guineans perhaps, but for the vast majority not so much.

Are you seeking to imply that the people of Papua New Guinea evolved separately to the rest of humanity?

Or are you just averse to explicitly admitting that your statement has been shown to be mistaken?

Clearly there must be other justifications for eating meat than our evolutionary history, which is demonstrably irrelevant.

That eating certain kinds of meat is frowned upon (whether that is human meat, or horse meat, or any other species meat) is completely unrelated to our evolved capacity to digest and even thrive upon a diet of that kind of meat.

Humans can eat the meat of any mammal (including humans), most fish, many reptiles, and most avians. This tells us exactly zip about whether eating any of these is justified.

I have no doubt that I could, if justified, survive by eating human, or rat, or snake; I equally have no doubt that I would need some pretty extreme justification for doing so, well beyond my mere evolved capacity to do so.

I’m just going to interject here that eating the flesh of some species, particularly those of the same or closely related species presents serious risks to the health of individuals consuming that flesh.

This, of course, does not include serious allergic reactions to certain types of flesh. Some members of my family, for example, cannot eat the flesh of bivalves as it causes anaphylactic shock.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

What's fucked up is your unrelenting willingness to mischaracterize my position.

 

[bilby]

I’m just going to interject here that eating the flesh of some species, particularly those of the same or closely related species presents serious risks to the health of individuals consuming that flesh.

Not really.

It carries a slightly higher risk of transmitting infections (prions, viruses, or bacteria) and/or parasites, but these are only transmissible if present. Basically eating almost any food is risky from that perspective - food of any kind must be prepared carefully to avoid food poisoning, and needs to be from uninfected individuals.

Eating infected, diseased, or parasite ridden individuals, plant or animal, is a risk to be avoided as far as possible.

Pork was once risky, but now isn't - because it was never the pork that was a problem. Undercooked chicken is still risky, but wouldn't be if salmonella were not endemic.

Eating closely related species isn't problematic in itself, but might be problematic due to the presence of a third organism.

 

[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.

What's fucked up is your unrelenting willingness to mischaracterize my position.

that would be like assigning a shape to silly putty.
Your ”position” changes every time its flaws are identified.
There is no position of yours that holds up to scrutiny. “That’s not my position” can only get you so far.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

IF A WOMAN'S LIFE OR HEALTH IS THREATENED THEN TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY
Do I need to make that 50 pt font to get this across? Clearly, having said it several dozen times isn't doing the job.

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.

As I've described several times... 'elective' in this context means that there is no known risk to the mother's health, no known issues with the fetus's health, and so far as any reasonable person can tell, they're both healthy and doing fine.

And she seems extraordinarily dismissive about the real life everyday challenges of caring for a premature infant. Or an infant.

Do you support killing prematurely delivered babies or newborns because of the real life challenges of caring for them?

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.

Do you think it's medically ethical to terminate a healthy fetus two weeks prior to the due date, when there's no known risk to the mother's health or life?

I don't. And that's why I'm defining those medical ethics, and placing a boundary condition on them.

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.

You get no argument from me, I don't support any of those things. On the other hand, I also don't support killing a healthy fetus inside of a healthy woman when we would move heaven and earth to save that same baby had it been a premature delivery.

 

[bilby]

This, of course, does not include serious allergic reactions to certain types of flesh. Some members of my family, for example, cannot eat the flesh of bivalves as it causes anaphylactic shock.

Any protein can be an allergen. I doubt that many people are particularly closely related to bivalves, and most are even less closely related to peanuts.

Allergies would be rapidly selected against in any environment where the source of the allergen was the only, or a major, source of food. They can persist in humans because we are omnivores, and can simply avoid those foods to which we are allergic.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Can you connect the dots for me on this?

(1) I agree that there's no certainty that a healthy fetus in a healthy mother will result in a delivered newborn being healthy and the mother not having any complications. I haven't suggested such.

(2) I believe that at some point in the pregnancy, it's not 'just a fetus' but is a baby, and as such, abortion without good medical necessity (severe defect or congenital condition, risk to the mother's life or health) is tantamount to murder.

Can you explain how holding view (1) somehow negates view (2)?