Roe v Wade is on deck

[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.

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

We didn't *evolve* to eat other humans.

We didn't *evolve* to eat any specific species of animal or plant.

Evolution doesn't work like that. Populations evolve to survive and reproduce. They don't evolve to do anything else, the things they end up doing well are just niches in the entire probability space explored by evolution.

Evolution sets and respects no moral boundaries. Appealing to evolution to determine whether or not it is OK to eat something is meaningless, unless you are simply looking at whether one can survive the event.

All fungi are edible, but some are only edible once.

I'm not the one setting moral boundaries about eating meat?

Seriously - go back and review. I have no moral view about veganism. I think it's silly, given that we evolved to consume meat. There's no moral position in there... unless "this is silly" is something you consider to be a moral judgement. And I think that's really stretching the idea of morality there.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not often, but they DO happen! These doctors DO exist!

So *yawn* how many dead women are you willing to trade per fetus saved? Or, how many confirmed "saves" (abortions that never happened solely because of their illegality, and resulted instead in a live birth) do you need to justify the death of one woman whose care was delayed or denied? These considerations should be paramount in the enacting of laws. Criminal laws have NO place in the game, IMO, and nobody in all these discussions has offer any evidence that they have ever produced improved outcomes.

I dunno buddy, take it up with Europe. It baffles me that so many of you are so vehemently determined to take a hard-line position that is not supported by most humans, not even remotely supported by most women, not just in the US but in the entire developed world.

Abortion in Europe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

FFS, Netherlands and UK have the most permissive abortion laws, at 24 weeks. I'm talking about 26 to 27 weeks - you could probably even talk me into 30!

 

[Elixir]

Good illustration.

Indeed. It illustrates Emily's advocacy for reproductive health decisions to be mandated by criminal statute, to be made by an unnamed third party's opinion about when blue becomes red.

To be fair, she has already said that she doesn't and cannot know

Sounds like a solid basis for taking or forbidding abortive action.

 

[Elixir]

How many facial hairs does it take to make a beard?

Bruce here says:
"They're really hard to count in the dark. Nice to be out here where I can admire them!"

 

[pood]

We define “baby” as someone who is born. So the real question isn’t when a fetus becomes a baby, but when it becomes a person, which may be pre-birth. There is no consensus on this and probably can never be, as in the red-to-blue transition cited above. The boundaries are fuzzy.

 

[Elixir]

I dunno buddy, take it up with Europe.

Europe doesn't disclose the average delay for permission to perform a late term abortion, at least in that article.
What am I supposed to learn about?
How many women European law sacrifices per fetus saved? I don't live in Europe.
Way to confront the question, Emily.

 

[Toni]

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.

Well, yes. Consuming the meat of a closely related species presents exactly the risk of contamination by a pathogen that could be problematic for humans if consumed or if one otherwise came into close contact such that the pathogen entered the bloodstream of humans. See risks of eating bush meat. Species do not need to be closely related to present significant risks. Prion disease comes to mind. It’s actually a problem in some US deer populations, necessitating the testing of deer taken by hunters in areas where it is known to be endemic .

 

[Toni]

I believe that at some point in the pregnancy, it's not 'just a fetus' but is a baby

When, Emily? WHEN does a fetus become a baby?

To be fair, she has already said that she doesn't and cannot know - just that it's not one at conception, but is one by the time it is born.

It's like this:

View attachment 49683

You can't draw an objective single line separating the red from the blue, but there's no doubt that the beginning is not the same as the end.

Good illustration.

To me, this is as good an argument as any for letting each mother draw the line where she chooses, without interference from the law.

Emily seems to like the idea of having a law, but seems incapable of articulating a reason for this, particularly given the absence of a boundary that would make a sane basis for any such law.

The reason for it, as I have articulated several times, is that at some point in the pregnancy, it's no longer a fetus but a baby, and at that point you are murdering an infant.

You might not *agree* with my reason, but to claim that I'm incapable of articulating the reason that I've repeatedly articulated in very clear language is absurd.

As far as a boundary that makes a sane basis for a law... "About the same time that a prematurely delivered baby would be given treatment to save and maintain its life" seem like a pretty sane basis.

You might not *agree* with where I've set the boundary, but to claim that one does not exist is disingenuous.

If

And the dub is that sometimes a baby is born with such devastating and lethal abnormalities that it is not given care to ensure its survival, because survival is impossible and the best that can be done is to minimize suffering.

I am fortunate. I never was at known risk for delivering a baby with a own fatal condition, but sometimes parents do know in advance and must wrestle with the dilemma of what will cause the least amount of pain and suffering for the fetus: termination of a much wanted pregnancy that will minimize fetal suffering or carrying to term a child that cannot survive after birth and which will experience great suffering until it dies minutes or hours later,

I cannot imagine judging parents for making whatever decision they believe is best. I’m just grateful that it was never me

 

[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?

That's kind of my point, Toni. The challenges involved in a premature birth have no bearing whatsoever on a discussion of whether or not abortions should only be available in a limited capacity late in gestation.

It’s not the challenges of the premature birth but the challenges of the consequences of a premature birth.

For someone who thinks there should not be a connection, between later term abortion and premature babies medical needs, you’ve tied them together in your posts: Abortions after this point should not be allowed because we can save some babies born at that gestational age.

 

[Elixir]

The boundaries are fuzzy.

RIGHT.
We all agree.
We all agree that somewhere in that red zone is an abortion that shouldn't happen, and should be have either criminal or civil repercussions.
We all agree that somewhere in that blue zone, there should be no legal restriction to abortion.
We all agree that "personhood" is attained at some point, at latest, by the time it is biologically autonomous.
(yes, even in a respirator with IVs, pulse/ox cardiorespiration monitor etc. )
We all agree that we don't know when "personhood" is attained.

So IMHO, using personhood as a factor in a statutory decision is irrational, period.
Drawing the distinction in a fuzzy area and legislating it, kills people because it necessarily delays emergency care in some cases, QED.
Drawing it deep in the red area might permit a few fetuses to be aborted that might not have been aborted, had severe criminal penalties been in play. Not a good trade-off.
I therefore advocate bestowing rights and legal protections on babies rather than fetuses.

 

[Elixir]

Consuming the meat of a closely related species presents exactly the risk of contamination by a pathogen that could be problematic for humans if consumed

That's why cannibals boil their missionaries in those big pots, silly.
If you don't have big pot, you can always make jerky.

 

[Toni]

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.

I'm going to restate this from my perspective. Please correct where I've gone wrong.

"If the mother decides at week 38 that she doesn't intend to carry to full term, then the fetus isn't a person at all and it's perfectly fine to terminate it. On the other hand, if the mother intends to carry to full term, but goes into premature labor at week 30, it's a person, and termination would be murder."

What happens if the mother doesn't intend to carry to term, but ends up going into premature labor at week 28, and the infant gets delivered via c-section? Is it a person, because it's been born and is separate from the mother's body... or is it not a person since she didn't *intend* to carry it to term?

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

At which point, CPS would definitely be involved to determine if it were safe to send baby home with mom or even allow mom in the same room as baby. Unfortunately pregnancy does sometimes cause serious mental health issues, including life threatening crisis

I may be misremembering but I think you do not have biological children? I’m only mentioning because you seem to be suffering under the delusion that pregnant women call the shots re: their care during pregnancy and labor and delivery

They don’t . At best, they get to state their wishes and plans and if things go according to plan and there is t some other reason-/different doctor. Lots of babies being born thst night, nurse with strong opinions that conflict with mother’s—everything might go to plan. Might. Doesn’t usually but it could happen

Reality is that women are given c-sections they don’t want, refused c-sections they do want, given episiotomies and meds they don’t want or are denied those things—depending on what the medical team things is best.

 

[Elixir]

For someone who thinks there should not be a connection, between later term abortion and premature babies medical needs, you’ve tied them together in your posts: Abortions after this point should not be allowed because we can save some babies born at that gestational age.

Bilby (I think) brought up a point that was quickly acknowledged, glossed over and then forgotten.
There has been a progression of "viability", survival to age X etc. In the 16th century and most of human history prior, about one in four babies didn't make it to a year old. Up to half didn't make it to adulthood. A 24 week old fetus had basically zero chance.
By the time I was born in 1950, infant mortality was down just under 3%. A baby born in America in 1950 had an estimated 95-97% chance of making it to adulthood. A 24 week fetus still had poor odds.
Today the infant mortality rate is 0.5% in the US.
It's reasonable to estimate that a 4-week premature infant (35-36 weeks) in 1900 would have had less than a 50% chance of survival (hard stats not available afaict).
By 1950 a 4-week premature (36 wk) infant was considered another "live birth", so it would be in the group that suffered only 20 deaths per thousand.
Today, survival rates are between 60% and 70%, for a 24 week fetus, depending on the level of neonatal care.

By 2050 we MAY have have extra-uteral support for a 16 week or EVEN AN 8 week fetus. If that's the case, I sure hope Republicans aren't in charge!

We should get the gov OUT of making reproductive healthcare decisions ASAP (sometime after Armageddon is what looks likely).

 

[Elixir]

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

^ Prime factor contributing to the vanishing rarity of the "optional" late term abortion that conservatives are rarin' to litigate. I wish that the reports of women dying from care delayed/denied, were that rare.

 

[Emily Lake]

We all agree that somewhere in that red zone is an abortion that shouldn't happen, and should be have either criminal or civil repercussions.
We all agree that somewhere in that blue zone, there should be no legal restriction to abortion.
We all agree that "personhood" is attained at some point, at latest, by the time it is biologically autonomous.

But because we can't figure out *exactly* where that point is... we're going to treat every one of them as if they're blue and pretend that no reds exist at all! Brilliant!

 

[Emily Lake]

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

You're conflating *shouldn't* based on what you and I believe with *doesn't*. And in a handful of states, it is defined in law as completely legal at any point with no restrictions at all.

A doctor would have no standing to refuse, and no standing to require mental health intervention.

 

[thebeave]

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.

I'm going to restate this from my perspective. Please correct where I've gone wrong.

"If the mother decides at week 38 that she doesn't intend to carry to full term, then the fetus isn't a person at all and it's perfectly fine to terminate it. On the other hand, if the mother intends to carry to full term, but goes into premature labor at week 30, it's a person, and termination would be murder."

What happens if the mother doesn't intend to carry to term, but ends up going into premature labor at week 28, and the infant gets delivered via c-section? Is it a person, because it's been born and is separate from the mother's body... or is it not a person since she didn't *intend* to carry it to term?

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

At which point, CPS would definitely be involved to determine if it were safe to send baby home with mom or even allow mom in the same room as baby. Unfortunately pregnancy does sometimes cause serious mental health issues, including life threatening crisis

I may be misremembering but I think you do not have biological children? I’m only mentioning because you seem to be suffering under the delusion that pregnant women call the shots re: their care during pregnancy and labor and delivery

They don’t . At best, they get to state their wishes and plans and if things go according to plan and there is t some other reason-/different doctor. Lots of babies being born thst night, nurse with strong opinions that conflict with mother’s—everything might go to plan. Might. Doesn’t usually but it could happen

Reality is that women are given c-sections they don’t want, refused c-sections they do want, given episiotomies and meds they don’t want or are denied those things—depending on what the medical team things is best.

Not true, at least in some states. Oregon for example, which has basically no restrictions:

Oregon Health Authority

• Abortion is legal in Oregon.
• You do not need to be a resident of Oregon or a U.S. citizen to get abortion services in Oregon.
• Oregon has no restrictions on abortions based on how far along in pregnancy you are.
• There are also no required waiting periods before receiving an abortion.
• There are no restrictions on getting medication abortion pills by mail within Oregon.

While medical providers may refuse to give you abortion services based on their personal beliefs, they cannot interfere with your legal right to choose to have an abortion. If you are refused an abortion, please know there are providers who will help you obtain abortion services in Oregon. See here for where to get an abortion in Oregon.

 

[ZiprHead]

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)?

I see that as a very good question without an answer. How about you write legislation that will keep all the parties safe from harm and legal punishment?

 

[Toni]

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

You're conflating *shouldn't* based on what you and I believe with *doesn't*. And in a handful of states, it is defined in law as completely legal at any point with no restrictions at all.

A doctor would have no standing to refuse, and no standing to require mental health intervention.

Huh. Doctors do NOT terminate pregnancies against their beliefs no matter how much the mother insists. Hospitals have guidelines that are built in part on state laws, insurance demands, guidance from the AMA and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology establish and insist on guidelines for providing care.

It is a rather sick fantasy to believe that any woman can go into a doctor’s office or hospital or clinic and simply demand the service she wants, even if insurance were not an issue. Good heavens I had to beg for HRT after my hysterectomy and even then the doctor only relented because my husband told him I needed it and the resident ( a woman) pulled up sufficient documentation supporting my request. The stakes are infinitely greater when there is a fetus or baby involved.

There is a lot of documentation about just how little women’ wants and needs and preferences and knowledge is taken into consideration in any medical setting.

You are really really reaching for a particularly ugly right wing lie and I’m not having it.

 

[Toni]

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.

I'm going to restate this from my perspective. Please correct where I've gone wrong.

"If the mother decides at week 38 that she doesn't intend to carry to full term, then the fetus isn't a person at all and it's perfectly fine to terminate it. On the other hand, if the mother intends to carry to full term, but goes into premature labor at week 30, it's a person, and termination would be murder."

What happens if the mother doesn't intend to carry to term, but ends up going into premature labor at week 28, and the infant gets delivered via c-section? Is it a person, because it's been born and is separate from the mother's body... or is it not a person since she didn't *intend* to carry it to term?

A woman who, at 38 weeks decodes she dies not want to continue to carry the pregnancy—please believe me when I say that is most pregnant women at 38 weeks gestation— does not go to her doctor or hospital or clinic and say; I’ve changed my mind. Do an abortion. Because guess what? That choice would not be given to her. She’d be treated to some serious intervention by mental health professionals and kept under close observation until the baby was delivered.

At which point, CPS would definitely be involved to determine if it were safe to send baby home with mom or even allow mom in the same room as baby. Unfortunately pregnancy does sometimes cause serious mental health issues, including life threatening crisis

I may be misremembering but I think you do not have biological children? I’m only mentioning because you seem to be suffering under the delusion that pregnant women call the shots re: their care during pregnancy and labor and delivery

They don’t . At best, they get to state their wishes and plans and if things go according to plan and there is t some other reason-/different doctor. Lots of babies being born thst night, nurse with strong opinions that conflict with mother’s—everything might go to plan. Might. Doesn’t usually but it could happen

Reality is that women are given c-sections they don’t want, refused c-sections they do want, given episiotomies and meds they don’t want or are denied those things—depending on what the medical team things is best.

Not true, at least in some states. Oregon for example, which has basically no restrictions:

Oregon Health Authority

• Abortion is legal in Oregon.
• You do not need to be a resident of Oregon or a U.S. citizen to get abortion services in Oregon.
• Oregon has no restrictions on abortions based on how far along in pregnancy you are.
• There are also no required waiting periods before receiving an abortion.
• There are no restrictions on getting medication abortion pills by mail within Oregon.

While medical providers may refuse to give you abortion services based on their personal beliefs, they cannot interfere with your legal right to choose to have an abortion. If you are refused an abortion, please know there are providers who will help you obtain abortion services in Oregon. See here for where to get an abortion in Oregon.

You can ‘choose’ all you want but that choice is not a reality if no one and no medical facility will perform the procedure.