Roe v Wade is on deck

[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.

It was perfectly legal for me to have a pony when I was a child.

I did not get a pony.

The lack of legislation forbidding something does not mean that something happens.

 

[bilby]

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.

Sure; But the way laws work is that they have to specify a point.

If the speed limit were set to "at some speed", what speed would you need to drive to avoid a ticket? If there's no specific speed limit, the only fair thing is to have no speeding law at all, and leave the choice of speed up to the judgement of individual motorists.

If the point where fetus becomes baby is equally nonspecific, the only fair thing is to not set a specific limit, and to leave the decision up to the woman involved.

Of course, in the case of speed limits, the law usually just makes an arbitrary call, perhaps with some consideration of local road conditions, and of inputs from lobby groups and local residents - but then, nobody has to suffer a lifetime of pain due to an unreasonable and arbitrary speed limit.

And even in the case of speed limits, it is observably the case that setting limits leads to some level of unfair and unjust punishment. Paying an unjust ticket for driving at 5mph over in clear, dry conditions on an empty highway is pretty annoying, but it's not "having to raise an unwanted child for eighteen years" annoying, nor is it "having to be raised by a mother who can't afford to, and/or doesn't want to, look after you" annoying.

The only fair rule, when the rule must, by the nature of the situation, be arbitrary, is not to have a rule at all. Give people the freedom to choose.

 

[bilby]

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

No, it is exactly what you just agreed to be the case. There is no boundary, just a continuum.

 

[bilby]

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.

We didn't "evolve to eat meat" (as I have already pointed out), and the claim that we did is clearly a moral judgement (as is the claim that veganism is therefore "silly") - or perhaps it is an excuse for refusing to consider the morality of your position, which is itself a choice of moral position.

I agree that veganism is silly, but I don't kid myself that my judgement in the matter is supported by evolution, which is completely neutral on this question. Evolution couldn't care less.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

No, it is exactly what you just agreed to be the case. There is no boundary, just a continuum.

I would disagree.

From the perspective of outside it is absolutely a continuum.

From the perspective of a person looking back on their own life and deciding when they were going to not be an asshole and honestly trying to figure out what that means even if it means you are or have been one, there are specific existential moments.

The continuum, from the outside, relates to how we can suspend our disbelief in the experience of those moments for someone else or of their effectiveness, or of the effectiveness of the programme by which they attempt to improve their abilities to be not-an-asshole.

Sometimes this involves telling someone off for being shitty.

Sometimes it means going to war against them until they surrender or force your hand.

Sometimes it means keeping them from touching anything dangerous or important.

Sometimes it involves a kind word and little more.

Then once we have done the thing, we suspend disbelief again as much as the context allows us.

It's really hard to believe a thing that is mindlessly parasitising your own body against your consent is a person, and if you evict them early enough, they most assuredly will never be.

Once they are under someone's mercy without putting on you any longer, living with the consent of those they shelter with, well, now you have to suspend disbelief. They're not actually harming anyone and that's the key indicator of possible personhood. If they've ever been known to seek that outcome, in fact.

 

[Elixir]

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!

Only in the absence of any reason. As Toni points out, they’re not likely to get an abortion from a legit doctor regardless.
That might not prevent them from letting someone try the coat hanger trick, or finding a quack who is a career criminal.
Neither will laws, obviously. But that’s as intrusive as I believe government should be on health care decisions. Save the women. They can make more.

 

[Tigers!]

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 want to know when "personhood" is attained.

FIFY

 

[bilby]

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 want to know when "personhood" is attained.

FIFY

Do you have any justification whatsoever for that attack on your fellow posters' intellectual integrity?

 

[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.

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

You apparently did not read the last bolded line in my response. Or do you have personal knowledge that Oregon is lying about their abortion laws?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 want to know when "personhood" is attained.

FIFY

I think what we have agreed upon is the threshold to personhood is "arbitrary" and people should stop acting like it is an objective attribute to existence.

 

[thebeave]

Establishing a demarcation point between "personhood" and "non-personhood" is always going to be inherently fraught with ambiguity. Yet, we do similar things, such as establishing reasonable speed limits on roads. I think we could all agree that 120 mph on a highway is too fast, and 10 mph is ridiculous and would bring civilization to a halt. So, we pick something reasonable in between and stick with it. Like, say, 70 mph. Would 75 mph be OK? Yes, that's pretty reasonable too. Would 65 mph be OK? Yes, that's also reasonable. There is often quibbling and whining about the exact speed limit, but we recognize that establishing a number is a sensible thing to do and come together to abide by it. Yet it does seem like people are having problems with this concept. [End of Captain Obvious rant]

 

[Jarhyn]

Establishing a demarcation point between "personhood" and "non-personhood" is always going to be inherently fraught with ambiguity. Yet, we do similar things, such as establishing reasonable speed limits on roads. I think we could all agree that 120 mph on a highway is too fast, and 10 mph is ridiculous and would bring civilization to a halt. So, we pick something reasonable in between and stick with it. Like, say, 70 mph. Would 75 mph be OK? Yes, that's pretty reasonable too. Would 65 mph be OK? Yes, that's also reasonable. There is often quibbling and whining about the exact speed limit, but we recognize that establishing a number is a sensible thing to do and come together to abide by it. Yet it does seem like people are having problems with this concept. [End of Captain Obvious rant]

The issue is that it looks different from different perspectives on the actual thing.

From outside, you can't tell, really, if someone is going to agree to not being a dick or if they are some kind of flesh pedestrian. Arguably even some flesh pedestrians could just spontaneously decide to be people.

It's just really hard to tell, and can only be told based on how someone is currently acting, like looking at the needle on a drum chart: You've seen where the readings go over time and whether they trend high or low, but you can only infer as to why, and only badly.

From the inside, you know there is a clear distinction there. There really is going to be a decision in each moment made as to when and whether you acknowledge the reality and existence and rights of others as equal to your own, and how equally you see them.

We generally allow slight personal preference without violating our suspension of disbelief in its absence.

I don't think we don't know, and I don't think we shouldn't want to know what makes a person a person. I just think we can't know whether or not folks are, given what makes them so, and we should just suspend any disbelief to the extent that they will let us.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What a crock of faux Captain Obvious shit.

Highways and roadway curves are designed for a particular speed. Physics would force cars to fly off them when exceeding that speed by a FoS or two. Additionally, we have statistics that can look into whether speeds should be increased or decreased based on accidents, deaths, incidents that have been observed as well as looking back at decades of data regarding how fast can reliably be expected to drive safely on.

Arguments regarding personhood date back millenia, have no concensus, and have no objective basis from statistics to rely on onee thing to justify one choice over the other. The only consistent thing is that legal provisions generally only apply to an individual post birth.

 

[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.

You apparently did not read the last bolded line in my response. Or do you have personal knowledge that Oregon is lying about their abortion laws?

I chose to have a pony. My parents were not obligated to obtain a pony for me. L

A physician is not obligated to perform an abortion if it violates their ethics. An exception might be if the mother’s life or health was at stake.

Oregon law seems to say that a physician cannot interfere with a woman’s attempts to secure an abortion but it does not say that a physician is obligated to provide one.


What is it that you imagine happens in late term abortions? Generally speaking, if the fetus is alive, its heart is stopped by medication delivered through the mother’s abdomen after which labor is induced and the fetus is delivered. The mother goes through labor. Given that the procedure does not begin with the fetus in position to be born-head not engaged, no dilation or effacement, you are looking at hours and hours of labor, with various medications administered to stimulate labor and prepare the cervix for delivery. The mother is conscious for all of this. Have you ever attended a birth?

A late term abortion happens when fetal abnormalities are so great that they would cause great pain and suffering and/or death within a very short timeframe if the pregnancy were continued, and at greater risk to the mother.

 

[thebeave]

What a crock of faux Captain Obvious shit.

Highways and roadway curves are designed for a particular speed. Physics would force cars to fly off them when exceeding that speed by a FoS or two. Additionally, we have statistics that can look into whether speeds should be increased or decreased based on accidents, deaths, incidents that have been observed as well as looking back at decades of data regarding how fast can reliably be expected to drive safely on.

Arguments regarding personhood date back millenia, have no concensus, and have no objective basis from statistics to rely on onee thing to justify one choice over the other. The only consistent thing is that legal provisions generally only apply to an individual post birth.

Maybe its different in Ohio, but we in CA generally have a set speed limit on the straight portions of the highway, and signs for lower speed limits on curves. On multi-lane freeways, with little or no curves there is more wiggle room on the established speed limits. For a long time, there was 55 mph speed limit. It saved lives over higher speeds. But we abolished the 55 limit, in exchange for faster travel times but increased road fatalies. We seem to approve of the higher speeds more than the lower speeds. Like Captain Obvious said, there is range of speeds that would be considered reasonable.

 

[Elixir]

there is range of speeds that would be considered reasonable.

All subject to change with advances in safety technology.

 

[pood]

This probably works better here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What a crock of faux Captain Obvious shit.

Highways and roadway curves are designed for a particular speed. Physics would force cars to fly off them when exceeding that speed by a FoS or two. Additionally, we have statistics that can look into whether speeds should be increased or decreased based on accidents, deaths, incidents that have been observed as well as looking back at decades of data regarding how fast can reliably be expected to drive safely on.

Arguments regarding personhood date back millenia, have no concensus, and have no objective basis from statistics to rely on onee thing to justify one choice over the other. The only consistent thing is that legal provisions generally only apply to an individual post birth.

Maybe its different in Ohio, but we in CA generally have a set speed limit on the straight portions of the highway, and signs for lower speed limits on curves. On multi-lane freeways, with little or no curves there is more wiggle room on the established speed limits. For a long time, there was 55 mph speed limit. It saved lives over higher speeds. But we abolished the 55 limit, in exchange for faster travel times but increased road fatalies. We seem to approve of the higher speeds more than the lower speeds. Like Captain Obvious said, there is range of speeds that would be considered reasonable.

Thanks for repeating what I said. Not certain why you felt the need to rehash what I stated, but it is fine. Of course, this didn't the issue your abject failure to come up with a viable analogy regarding the threshhold of personhood.

 

[thebeave]

What a crock of faux Captain Obvious shit.

Highways and roadway curves are designed for a particular speed. Physics would force cars to fly off them when exceeding that speed by a FoS or two. Additionally, we have statistics that can look into whether speeds should be increased or decreased based on accidents, deaths, incidents that have been observed as well as looking back at decades of data regarding how fast can reliably be expected to drive safely on.

Arguments regarding personhood date back millenia, have no concensus, and have no objective basis from statistics to rely on onee thing to justify one choice over the other. The only consistent thing is that legal provisions generally only apply to an individual post birth.

Maybe its different in Ohio, but we in CA generally have a set speed limit on the straight portions of the highway, and signs for lower speed limits on curves. On multi-lane freeways, with little or no curves there is more wiggle room on the established speed limits. For a long time, there was 55 mph speed limit. It saved lives over higher speeds. But we abolished the 55 limit, in exchange for faster travel times but increased road fatalies. We seem to approve of the higher speeds more than the lower speeds. Like Captain Obvious said, there is range of speeds that would be considered reasonable.

Thanks for repeating what I said. Not certain why you felt the need to rehash what I stated, but it is fine. Of course, this didn't the issue your abject failure to come up with a viable analogy regarding the threshhold of personhood.

You're welcome. The analogy is fine. You just don't like it for some reason.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, so birth it is then.