Roe v Wade is on deck

[laughing dog]

There's this thing called adoption, it's been around pretty much forever. Even animals have been known to adopt and rear someone else's offspring.

So you believe in forced carrying to term.

In the third trimester, when there's no fetal defect and no known risk to the mother, yes I do. Are you just catching on to this now?

No, I just thought such a position is the province of nutjob religionists and dystopian science fiction.

Meh. I think it's the province of nutjob hardliners and dystopian carelessness to kill viable and healthy fetuses for no good goddamned reason, so I suppose that makes us equal on this.

There is no such thing as a risk birth. None. I suppose you are free to spout your religious views and impose birth on women but there is no way that mandating a woman go to term in the 3rd semester if you don't approve of your reasons for an abortion

You can stomp your foot rational way is forcing a woman to give birth in the 3rd trimester but preventing women the freedom to make healthcare choices because you don't approve of their reasons for such a choice is pretty much medieval.

Realistically... you can view it as nutjob and dystopian, but the overwhelming majority of woman support the same view I hold. Because once you step outside the realm of philosophical academic discourse, just about everyone acknowledges that a fetus in the third trimester is a baby. And pretty much everyone would agree that if someone forcibly killed that baby against the mother's will, it should be treated as murder. And while it might suck for some people sometimes, you can't have it both ways - it can't be murder if it's against your will and healthcare if it is your will.

Of course one can. You are saying with the ttrimester standard - one day before the third trimester it is health care, the next day it is murder.

 

[Emily Lake]

CA.
They have hired a board of psychics to divine the malice and aforethought of doctors who perform abortion?
Or is it the “unlawful “ part that needs litigating?

That's actually the substance here.

Consider: Robber shoots 30 week pregnant woman in the stomach and kills her baby. Do you agree that this is murder? Or is this property damage? Or perhaps battery?

Do you think the robber should face criminal charges for the forced termination of the developing fetus?

 

[Emily Lake]

Only by not knowing can RW legislators rationalize their presence in an ER or birthing suite.

Literally nobody in this thread thinks legislators should be present in the ER or birthing suite.

 

[Emily Lake]

I conditioned my statement with a "generally". Finding an exclusion isn't breaking the veracity of my statement. As far as most governments are concerned, life begins at birth: life insurance, health care, social security, dependents, disability coverage, birth certificates, etc...

You know that most governments disallow abortions after 24 weeks unless they're medically indicated, right? And when I say "most" I mean every country except the US, and in the US it's only a handful of states that allow it after that.

Most governments, and most humans, consider life to begin well before birth. Citing specific types of documentation doesn't change that. I mean, we don't get driver's licenses until 16 so clearly we're not alive until we get that particular document?

 

[ZiprHead]

Most governments, and most humans, consider life to begin well before birth.

There is no "beginning" of life. The seman is alive and the egg is alive. It's simply a continuation of life.

 

[Emily Lake]

The arbitrariness and subjectivity of a threshold tell us jack squat about the objectivity of the properties of entities far removed from the threshold.

So go with the only reliably identifiable moment of transition from fetus to baby. Duh.

Fetal heartbeat?[/sarcasm]

"We don't know whether a 20-week fetus is a person. But that doesn't prove we don't know that a 30-week fetus is a person. Therefore the law should presume a 39-week fetus isn't a person." doesn't strike me as an argument that can be proven correct with "Duh.".

That's right on the nail for the most frustrating thing about this discussion.

I don't have perfect knowledge, I never claimed to. I can recognize that a 5 week fetus really isn't particularly "persony". But I can also recognize that a 35 week fetus is pretty damned "persony". I acknowledge that there isn't a bright dividing line... but there is a reasonable stage of development where a fetus is enough of a person to merit protections from being killed without compelling reason. Most other countries set that line at 22 to 24 weeks - I personally want to err a little more on the side of choice, so I peg it at 27. I started at 26 and moved from there based on the survivability stats, to a point where it seemed reasonable. At 27 weeks, there's about a 75% or so likelihood of survival without severe health impacts.

What I get frustrated with is this heap fallacy writ large, this pretense that because we can't draw a stark line between the blue lines and the red lines in the text... that means that blue is indistinguishable from red and therefore a 39.9 week old fetus has no personhood at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seven months: 100%

Based on what?
I mean, okay, but … who says? And who says when the “7 month” fetus was actually conceived? All just for legal purposes of course. We need to know exactly when you had sex with whom! If you don’t know and the fetus that may (or may not) be 7 mos in utero, should die for any reason, we need FACTS!

JFC. You know we have a really, really good understanding of how human embryos develop throughout pregnancy, right? It's not like the doc is standing there with a dowsing rod and a tarot deck making a wild guess about how far along the mother is, you know that don't you?

Estimates might be off... but they're off by a day or two. Please stop being so needlessly and antagonistically absurd.

 

[Emily Lake]

A distinction without a difference - politicians are limiting the possible allowable health care decisions.

Politicians are limiting the possible allowable health care decisions when that decision involves killing another human being.

I think a person should able to request a medically assisted suicide for any reason.

Do you really?

I mean, I think I'm pretty liberal with assisted suicide, but even I don't think we should let a 13 year old be euthanized because the person they were dating broke up with them. Even I don't think we should let someone who is currently under the influence of a strong mood-altering drug decide to off themselves and expect doctor's help. Even I don't think we should let someone who is in the midst of a psychotic break be terminated via doctor because their delusion tells them that's the only way to save the planet from alien attack.

 

[Emily Lake]

The site you linked to is a directory. If you had clicked the link in the directory you would have been taken to the web site of the actual clinic doing the procedures.

No shit. That would be why I actually went to the site. Just because it doesn't spell out "Oh, by the way, this process will kill the fetus so that it's dead when we remove it" doesn't mean that somehow, this is a procedure that is only offered to women whose fetus has already died prior to them seeking an abortion and spending three to four days at it.

FYI - you might consider looking into the medical procedure for inducing labor for a stillborn. It's an entirely different process than that described for a late stage abortion, and it involved medicines that induce contractions.

That's not what's described for the late abortion, because inducing contractions would be highly likely to result in a live birth - which is pretty much the entire opposite of the intention for an abortion.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can't show you something that isn't present on that site. That said, it's beyond absurd for you to pretend that removal of a stillbirth is being called "abortion" and that it only ever gets applied to infants that have already died prior to the mother seeking out abortion services.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence? It makes no sense to take decisive action like criminal punishment on that basis. You are presuming that there was a point when they "killed the baby" in some cases. How many cases are there altogether?

you (and others) blatantly mischaracterizing my position

Broken record, Emily. Please tell me what I said (without paraphrase if possible) that mischaracterizes your position, and what the correction would be other than "not that".

You've repeatedly claimed that I want to delay treatment while lawyers and politicians hash out whether or not an abortion is allowed. You've repeatedly claimed that I would require doctors to get permission from law enforcement prior to performing an abortion.

 

[Emily Lake]

Most governments, and most humans, consider life to begin well before birth.

There is no "beginning" of life. The seman is alive and the egg is alive. It's simply a continuation of life.

I see we've reached the point in the discussion where someone starts arguing from stoned-teenager-logic.

 

[Emily Lake]

Jumping in the way back, because this keeps being referenced.

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.

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.

I disagree with this take - if you're letting the mother draw the line where she chooses, then you're essentially saying:

We can all agree that this text is red, except that for some people who draw the line at the very beginning, this line is blue.

We can also similarly agree that this text is blue, except for the people who draw the line at the very end, and for them this line is red.

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.

I've articulated the reason several times. But in your example, I would say that all reasonable people can agree that the line beginning "only micro-evolved from... " is blue enough to be treated as all the way blue, and the line that begins "the same distinction between... " is far enough from blue that reasonable people will acknowledge it as purple. So the dividing line between blue and purple is somewhere in between those two lines, and I'm fine with defining a division as being closer to "only micro-evolved from". What I'm not fine with is saying that the last line is red, nor am I fine with saying that the first line is blue.

Where I end up being highly frustrated is that several people in this thread have taken the position that because we can't pick a single exact letter to draw a perfect line at... then everyone gets to pick where they want to draw the line for themselves, even when the result is that for some people it's all red all the time, and for other people it's all blue all the time. When otherwise rational people refuse to behave rationally, you end up with those people supporting and advocating for rank irrationality.

 

[laughing dog]

A distinction without a difference - politicians are limiting the possible allowable health care decisions.

Politicians are limiting the possible allowable health care decisions when that decision involves killing another human being.

Do you get dizzy from that spinning?

I think a person should able to request a medically assisted suicide for any reason.

Do you really?

I mean, I think I'm pretty liberal with assisted suicide, but even I don't think we should let a 13 year old be euthanized because the person they were dating broke up with them. Even I don't think we should let someone who is currently under the influence of a strong mood-altering drug decide to off themselves and expect doctor's help. Even I don't think we should let someone who is in the midst of a psychotic break be terminated via doctor because their delusion tells them that's the only way to save the planet from alien attack.

Requesting assisted suicide is one thing. Having the request granted is another.

With requested suicicde, I think it should be speciality with extensive training in psychology, psychiatry and medicine.

 

[Elixir]

Jumping in the way back, because this keeps being referenced.

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.

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.

I disagree with this take - if you're letting the mother draw the line where she chooses, then you're essentially saying:

We can all agree that this text is red, except that for some people who draw the line at the very beginning, this line is blue.

We can also similarly agree that this text is blue, except for the people who draw the line at the very end, and for them this line is red.

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.

I've articulated the reason several times. But in your example, I would say that all reasonable people can agree that the line beginning "only micro-evolved from... " is blue enough to be treated as all the way blue, and the line that begins "the same distinction between... " is far enough from blue that reasonable people will acknowledge it as purple. So the dividing line between blue and purple is somewhere in between those two lines, and I'm fine with defining a division as being closer to "only micro-evolved from". What I'm not fine with is saying that the last line is red, nor am I fine with saying that the first line is blue.

Where I end up being highly frustrated is that several people in this thread have taken the position that because we can't pick a single exact letter to draw a perfect line at... then everyone gets to pick where they want to draw the line for themselves, even when the result is that for some people it's all red all the time, and for other people it's all blue all the time. When otherwise rational people refuse to behave rationally, you end up with those people supporting and advocating for rank irrationality.

Enough with the colors, let's move on to numbers.
I've provided data with sourcing, indicating the extreme rarity of the scenario your proposed laws are intended to prevent/mitigate.
The number of specific examples cited is less than a handful. The number of women (and children) suffering or dying from delayed/denied abortion care as a result of the existence of criminal laws, would have to be vastly exceed by verified cases of "optional abortions" that laws might have forestalled or prevented, before I would endorse the idea of trying a law in order to address the epidemic. YMMV, but I believe that is the most humane and effective course to attain such objectives as we may hold in common.

 

[Toni]

If she had actually gone to the actual website advertisement where she could have seen this:

View attachment 49823

"delivery of a stillborn". It says nothing about actually killing the fetus.

Wow, you're kind of digging all the way down into pedantry here. It's an abortion. It's not removal of an already stillborn fetus. The fetus is killed in the process, so that by the time it's actually removed, it's stillborn. But it's not stillborn when they start the procedure.

Can you show me from the description of the procedure the point where the fetus is killed?

Still waiting for an answer.

I can't show you something that isn't present on that site. That said, it's beyond absurd for you to pretend that removal of a stillbirth is being called "abortion" and that it only ever gets applied to infants that have already died prior to the mother seeking out abortion services.

Emily, in some states, it is now forbidden for medical personnel to remove a dead fetus until the mother is in sepsis or passes the dead fetus because they call it abortion. More commonly, a fetus that is dying and causing the mother serious medical danger cannot be a used as long as there is a detectable heartbeat —even if it is clear that fetal demise is imminent and the mother is also in danger. Women have died in these circumstances. It they are only women so..

 

[Elixir]

A distinction without a difference - politicians are limiting the possible allowable health care decisions.

Politicians are limiting the possible allowable health care decisions when that decision involves killing another human being.

Do you get dizzy from that spinning?

I think a person should able to request a medically assisted suicide for any reason.

Do you really?

I mean, I think I'm pretty liberal with assisted suicide, but even I don't think we should let a 13 year old be euthanized because the person they were dating broke up with them. Even I don't think we should let someone who is currently under the influence of a strong mood-altering drug decide to off themselves and expect doctor's help. Even I don't think we should let someone who is in the midst of a psychotic break be terminated via doctor because their delusion tells them that's the only way to save the planet from alien attack.

Requesting assisted suicide is one thing. Having the request granted is another.

With requested suicicde, I think it should be speciality with extensive training in psychology, psychiatry and medicine.

They should have to write a long note to everyone they know - and name them. Explain WTF you think you're doing and why at some length.
That way people can either agree that you should off yourself, or they'll think you're being a dick and won't care.

 

[Toni]

What I personally believe is that there likely exists a circumstance where the scenario you so broadly described would in fact be the better choice.

Can you describe a hypothetical circumstance in which you think it would be ethical and appropriate to terminate a healthy third trimester fetus that presents no known health risk to the mother? I'm not asking for hard data, I'll be content with a ferinstance.

And that it is not MY choice or YOUR choice to decide. Nor is it lawmakers' choice to decide nor law enforcement's choice to make.

But it *is* the lawmaker's decision to make when it pertains to euthanasia, is it not? Providing guidelines for when it is allowable or defensible to deprive someone of life seems like a reasonable thing for lawmakers to do.

I don’t think it should be the law maker’s decision re: euthanasia. I’m not certain it is in every state.

Do you think that any person should be able to request medically assisted suicide for any reason? Or do you think it should be allowable only in certain situations?

Here's the thing that keeps getting conflated in this thread - it keeps getting framed as being "the lawmaker's decision" when in actuality, it's the doctor's decision, and the lawmaker is only setting the boundary conditions within which the doctor can make the decision.

And those boundary conditions exist because the lawmaker is literally defining an allowable exception to what would otherwise be considered murder.

I do think that a person should be allowed to request a medically assisted suicide. But I also think that a thorough examination by mental health professionals is in order first, as well as thorough examinations and serious discussions about why suicide is requested and if the patient might not benefit sufficiently from other, less permanent t treatment. Those in intractable pain is one such example. For myself, dementia would be an example under which I’d prefer assisted suicide for myself, having watched my mother die of dementia. I don’t want that for myself or for any family or loved ones to have to go through watching me die like that.

 

[Toni]

I may be mistaken but I believe you wish a return to Roe v Wade? It is quite possible that laws could be written to favor saving the fetus no matter the risk to the mother in 3rd trimester pregnancies.

"It's possible that someone could totally bastardize your proposal to do something completely different from what you've proposed, something you've explicitly stated you don't support... therefore you support killing mothers!!!!1"

Come on Toni, you're better than this. You're arguing with me about my views and my proposed approach to it, but you're holding up as a counter to my views something that I explicitly reject. If someone were to write laws that favor saving the fetus regardless of the risk to the mother I would not support those laws and would advocate against them.

I genuinely don't mind having my views challenged, and having people disagree with my views and perspective. What I am infuriated by is people who continue to ignore my views - regardless of how many times I've stated them clearly and explicitly - in order to argue against something I haven't said and don't support... and use that strawman to berate me with. Which has happened a lot in this thread.

I’m sorry: I was actually attempting to clarify my understanding of your pov. I lack the patience or time to go through this entire thread . My bad.

 

[Bomb#20]

Elixir, this is you being disingenuous. I don't know how many possible ways I can say that the mother's life always wins, and if there's any risk to her life or health, abortion is perfectly justified. I've been consistently clear about that from the start.

I do NOT support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses, I never have, and nothing I have proposed does so.

I may be mistaken but I believe you wish a return to Roe v Wade? It is quite possible that laws could be written to favor saving the fetus no matter the risk to the mother in 3rd trimester pregnancies.

True -- states can write any laws they please. For instance, it is also quite possible that laws could be written barring women from college sports, but they'll be overturned for violating federal civil rights law. Likewise, if RvW is ever enacted as federal law as Emily advocates, and a state tries to pull what you describe, the state law will survive only about five minutes into the first hearing in federal court. Roe v Wade specified that the mother's health comes first.

"From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health."​

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Elixir]

they'll be overturned for violating federal civil rights law.

Just another reason the current administration will probably try to get their SCROTUS to rubber stamp it.