Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

I see no substantial difference in life value between a baby that will be delivered in 10 minutes versus a baby that was born 10 minutes ago and breathed, for example.

That’s part of my point. It’s a bad idea to base laws on opinions rather than facts. You stated your opinion. Others have other opinions, or we’d have no controversy. One SAFE opinion is held by a vast majority of PEOPLE: the baby that is crying is a baby. It is an opinion so widely held that one can justify calling it a fact.
A fetus to be delivered in ten minutes may or may not survive birth once “disconnected” biologically from the mother. But if they do, I know of nobody who will argue against its “personhood”.

 

[Elixir]

you've now completely flipped my proposed position into something that I do not hold

How many times have you said that, to how many other posters?
At some point you might want to re-evaluate your “position” and/or the way you present it.
That said I commend you again for your new position:

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

… and note that this requirement has been in effect for virtually all medical procedures for a VERY long time.
I SINCERELY hope I have not once again misrepresented your position, since it is a verbatim quote. If I have done so I apologize and plead for clarification.

 

[Bomb#20]

You mean this guy?

Maybe... looks like a nice guy. Almost Dr Kildaire-ish.

How you doin'?

Just FKing up my FKs, a little case of brainworm.
(fixed, thanks!)

I'm not sure he's a government-endorsed medical expert. Isn't that guy the aviation expert Trump appointed to run the FAA?




Too soon?

 

[Bomb#20]

Whether or not preventing a late-term abortion benefits nobody but lawyers has still to be answered. You are simply presuming your opinion that a fetus doesn't count as "someone" to be fact. Your own stated principle implies if Emily's dishonest, so are you.

So the criteria for personhood raises it ugly hard again.

You're the one who raised it again, when you repeated your claim that preventing a late-term abortion benefits nobody but lawyers. If it's not a consideration you think should be taken into account, stop raising the issue.

You’re right. My presumption is that no fetus has equal default value to that of a person who has friends, memories, likes and dislikes, maybe even a favorite color and a number of people who know their name, food preferences and all the other stuff I associate with PEOPLE.
YOU have refused to state your own beliefs under the guise of belief that it doesn’t matter.

What the heck are you on about? I told you my beliefs back in post #4008. What about my beliefs do you want to know that you think I haven't told you?

If you mean I haven't told you my beliefs about whether a fetus has equal default value to that of a person who has friends, memories, likes and dislikes, maybe even a favorite color and a number of people who know their name, food preferences, yes, I bloody well have told you. As I told you, I believe the "value" of a fetus or a born person is metaphysical nonsense. I believe in physics, not metaphysics.

I take it that this is supposed to elevate your statements to some level of objectivity that cannot be attained except by presuming fetuses to have equal or greater value to that of a person.

Then you take it wrong. You are projecting your own thought patterns onto me. Presuming fetuses to have equal or greater value to that of a person is no more objective than any other subjective valuation, and presuming there's such a thing as objectivity in valuation is metaphysical nonsense.

Standing on your high horse and talking down to me for voicing my opinion without voicing your own and without offering any reason to disagree with mine, seems kinda smarmy to me.
Tellya what - let me know why I should consider a fetus to have the same value as my wife, and you can change my mind.

Value them however you please; I'm not in the business of telling people how much to value stuff. I'm also not in the business of deciding what someone's rights are based on how much others value him. I don't think it's a lesser crime to kill a hobo nobody will miss than to kill a guy with friends and a number of people who know his name. If you judge moral conflicts by ranking others on a stack and ruling in favor of whichever party you value more, you do you, but don't take for granted that the rest of us share your algorithm.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think it's a lesser crime to kill a hobo nobody will miss than to kill a guy with friends and a number of people who know his name.

What makes you think nobody will miss a hobo, that (s)he has no friends and nobody knows their name?
Piss on me for MY values, then say something like that … no words.

I believe the "value" of a fetus or a born person is metaphysical nonsense. I believe in physics, not metaphysics.

Then you should be a fan of the objectively observable fact of biological autonomy, and accept it as a rational point at which to define legal “personhood” to avoid metaphysical nonsense getting involved in legal decisions.

 

[Elixir]

If it's not a consideration you think should be taken into account, stop raising the issue.

What needs to be taken into account is the specious nature of ”personhood” arguments for restricting access to abortion. Ignoring it doesn’t solve the problem.

I'm also not in the business of deciding what someone's rights are based on how much others value him.

What basis DO you use? You have obviously conferred rights of some sort upon fetuses, but the basis for that is not clear.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think it's a lesser crime to kill a hobo nobody will miss than to kill a guy with friends and a number of people who know his name.

What makes you think nobody will miss a hobo, that (s)he has no friends and nobody knows their name?
Piss on me for MY values, then say something like that … no words.

Good grief, where the bejesus do you think you saw me say all hobos won't be missed? Some subset of hobos have no friends or anyone who knows them, and I was referring to one from the subset. Other demographics also have members with those features, especially retirees who live alone and have outlived their friends; I don't think it's a lesser crime to kill them either. I specified a hobo only because it's a well-known trope -- psychopaths who want the experience of killing someone are popularly imagined to target hobos because hobos are statistically more likely than the general public not to be missed, so their killers are more likely not to be caught.

I believe the "value" of a fetus or a born person is metaphysical nonsense. I believe in physics, not metaphysics.

Then you should be a fan of the objectively observable fact of biological autonomy, and accept it as a rational point at which to define legal “personhood” to avoid metaphysical nonsense getting involved in legal decisions.

You appear to have jumped from an "is" to a "should". How does that work in your view? From out here, your argument looks exactly as arbitrary as "Then you should be a fan of the objectively observable fact of fetal heartbeat, and accept it as a rational point at which to define legal personhood”.

If we define legal personhood based on biological autonomy, then we'd have to conclude that a guy receiving a direct person-to-person blood transfusion is not legally a person. Does that seem like a sensible legal rule to you?

If it's not a consideration you think should be taken into account, stop raising the issue.

What needs to be taken into account is the specious nature of ”personhood” arguments for restricting access to abortion. Ignoring it doesn’t solve the problem.

If personhood arguments are specious by nature, then "The facts remain: abortion laws kill people and benefit nobody (but lawyers)." is necessarily a specious argument. Don't make specious arguments. I got involved in this endlessly unresolvable worldview clash in the first place not because restricting access to abortion is important to me but because you were attacking a moderate Democrat with specious arguments, and that serves only to help turn the Democrats into a small-tent party that can't even beat a buffoon like Trump.

I'm also not in the business of deciding what someone's rights are based on how much others value him.

What basis DO you use? You have obviously conferred rights of some sort upon fetuses,

Not at all. I don't confer rights; I recognize them. People have rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because they're endowed by our creator. That our creator happens to be natural selection rather than some religion's fictional character doesn't invalidate that.

but the basis for that is not clear.

True; but that's a huge can of worms, and one more suited to M&P than to PD.

 

[Jarhyn]

If it's not a consideration you think should be taken into account, stop raising the issue.

What needs to be taken into account is the specious nature of ”personhood” arguments for restricting access to abortion. Ignoring it doesn’t solve the problem.

I'm also not in the business of deciding what someone's rights are based on how much others value him.

What basis DO you use? You have obviously conferred rights of some sort upon fetuses, but the basis for that is not clear.

I would expect that it's something in the vicinity of "whatever makes me and those I support most powerful in the enforcement and promotion thereof."

 

[Elixir]

Some subset of hobos have no friends or anyone who knows them, and I was referring to one from the subset.

Not in evidence. Hobos are a community. (Ask me how I know)
No biggie, since

psychopaths who want the experience of killing someone are popularly imagined to target hobos because hobos are statistically more likely than the general public not to be missed, so their killers are more likely not to be caught.

I wonder ... do you believe such psychopathy might be more prevalent or less prevalent among doctors than in the general population? Probably about the same?

"The facts remain: abortion laws kill people and benefit nobody (but lawyers)." is necessarily a specious argument.

Non sequitur. It is a specious argument IF one grants the ASSUMPTION that it is possible to determine the "personhood" of a fetus. You can certainly re-define personhood to support your accusation, but my argument doesn't rely on non-personhood, it relies only on the FACT of fetus-hood being a property of fetuses.

"whatever makes me and those I support most powerful in the enforcement and promotion thereof."

Enforcing "Fetal rights"?
Does it include a fetus' right to its mother's blood and food?
Does the right (whatever it is) extend to blastocysts?
That is some epically swampy territory wherein rationality sinks below the muck.
I'm not convinced B#20 would even go there, as he admits that he is only in this thread to protect Emily from big old meanies like me.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's nice that those who want a king are apparently admitting to it by stepping in front of a statement.
...

To the three people who "Like"d the above post: what exactly did you like about it? Are you guys seriously buying Jarhyn's make-believe revisionism to the effect that the:

Wow this is asinine. What kind of fascist Nazi hack doesn't realize that "the king can rape and hang you" is <rest snipped>​

post I allegedly "stepped in front of" was just general commentary, and wasn't directed personally at me and my three-posts-back "the local lord could do as he pleased and if she didn't cater to his every whim there was no law against him hanging her for it" post #4543?!? I didn't step in front of the statement; Jarhyn deliberately aimed it at me.

 

[Bomb#20]

psychopaths who want the experience of killing someone are popularly imagined to target hobos because hobos are statistically more likely than the general public not to be missed, so their killers are more likely not to be caught.

I wonder ... do you believe such psychopathy might be more prevalent or less prevalent among doctors than in the general population? Probably about the same?

I suspect it's more prevalent among doctors, based on the purely circumstantial evidence that both psychopathy and going to medical school are positively correlated with having an alpha-male personality.

"The facts remain: abortion laws kill people and benefit nobody (but lawyers)." is necessarily a specious argument.

Non sequitur. It is a specious argument IF one grants the ASSUMPTION that it is possible to determine the "personhood" of a fetus.

Dude! That's exactly what your argument assumes! When you dismiss the fetuses who benefit as "nobody"* you're implying they aren't persons. Well, it's impossible for you to have reason to classify them as nonpersons unless it is possible to determine their personhood.

(* Unless of course you're classifying the fetuses as lawyers. )

You can certainly re-define personhood to support your accusation, but my argument doesn't rely on non-personhood, it relies only on the FACT of fetus-hood being a property of fetuses.

How the heck do you figure that? How does fetushood imply one isn't somebody who isn't a lawyer? Show your work without relying on non-personhood, and good luck with that.

no·bod·y
pronoun
no person; no one.
"nobody was at home"

- OED​

"whatever makes me and those I support most powerful in the enforcement and promotion thereof."

Enforcing "Fetal rights"?
Does it include a fetus' right to its mother's blood and food?

You asking me, or Jarhyn? You must have noticed by now that Jarhyn is pathologically bad at understanding other people's motivations.

Whether a fetus has a right to his or her mother's blood and food is a complicated question that depends on the details of the individual case.

Does the right (whatever it is) extend to blastocysts?

Of course not. Blastocysts don't have brains.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's simplify this.

At what point in time does a fetus's rights impose a legal liability on the woman? We'll push aside the fact the fetus has not been endowed with any rights at this point by SCOTUS.

 

[Elixir]

Whether a fetus has a right to his or her mother's blood and food is a complicated question that depends on the details of the individual case.

There ya go. Let’s not abridge the rights of the mother due to complicated questions about another organism’s parasitism on her body. Details of the case are no business of government IMO.
Emily, whose “position” has now evolved to

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

… seems to have conceded that the path of least harm is to allow the attending physician to make the decisions for which she formerly required the oversight of an “authority”, meaning legal authority, then morphed into requiring the assent of two doctors. Now her recommendation is consilient with my own, so I see no argument;

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

I did predict another revision to her position upon realizing she now holds my stance, but so far, that has not been forthcoming, and I am quite impressed.
Even without her acknowledgement I commend her ability to respond to rational argument in this case, and admire her ability to modify her position upon deeper consideration.

 

[Elixir]

At what point in time does a fetus's rights impose a legal liability on the woman? We'll push aside the fact the fetus has not been endowed with any rights at this point by SCOTUS.

Rubbing it in, eh?
The point of acquisition of rights is no clearer now than it was at the outset of this thread. If there was another reliably determinable point at which the fetus UNARGUABLY has human rights (personhood) I would go with it. We could even go with fetal heartbeat or brain activity, but such points occur so early and/ require elaborate tests, it just seems to me that biological autonomy is the obvious “point”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To be clear, the question isn't meant to be objective, it was meant to be answered via an opinion. Unviable pregnancies don't count as an excuse to weasel out.

 

[Emily Lake]

Write your version of the restriction on late term abortions you would like to see enacted and takes into account the mother's life and all the ways it can be threatened.

Here you go.

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my original proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, the doctor performing the procedure is required to document the conditions and risks involved, and their records may be subject to audit.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

ETA: Be aware that the latest period for unrestricted abortions in Europe is 24 weeks.

 

[Emily Lake]

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

OMFG. Something new with every post.
Nothing whatsoever is wrong with that, now that you have left the government out of the equation.

It's not new at all. I've said this repeatedly over and over again. Clearly and consistently.

What happened to “we need an authority”?
Your platform is so unstable I fear you’ll fall off.

My platform is stable - the pretend one that you've constructed out of straw that you want to pretend I'm standing on is an entirely different issue.

If that is extent of what you’d require I congratulate you for coming around. I suspect you’ll be back to wanting legal permissions by tomorrow, though.

Legislation is involved

Ooops. That didn’t last long.
Which is it?
BTW docs are already required to document what they do and why.

Again, "permission" has never been part of my proposal. Legally defined guidelines when 1) ensure access without constraint for the first two trimesters and 2) stipulate medical indication in the third trimester is the only thing I've ever asked for. And doctors documenting the *medical conditions* that support a late abortion is the only thing I've ever required.

Everything else has been a product of your fevered imagination.

 

[Emily Lake]

I see no substantial difference in life value between a baby that will be delivered in 10 minutes versus a baby that was born 10 minutes ago and breathed, for example.

That’s part of my point. It’s a bad idea to base laws on opinions rather than facts. You stated your opinion. Others have other opinions, or we’d have no controversy. One SAFE opinion is held by a vast majority of PEOPLE: the baby that is crying is a baby. It is an opinion so widely held that one can justify calling it a fact.
A fetus to be delivered in ten minutes may or may not survive birth once “disconnected” biologically from the mother. But if they do, I know of nobody who will argue against its “personhood”.

The vast majority of people also believe that aborting a healthy fetus in the third trimester that doesn't pose any known risk to the mother is tantamount to murder. It's an opinion held so widely that we can justify calling it a fact.

That you personally don't hold that opinion makes you an outlier, not an expert.

 

[Emily Lake]

Then you should be a fan of the objectively observable fact of biological autonomy, and accept it as a rational point at which to define legal “personhood” to avoid metaphysical nonsense getting involved in legal decisions.

A newborn isn't biologically autonomous. They're entirely dependent on other humans for their survival.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I see no substantial difference in life value between a baby that will be delivered in 10 minutes versus a baby that was born 10 minutes ago and breathed, for example.

That’s part of my point. It’s a bad idea to base laws on opinions rather than facts. You stated your opinion. Others have other opinions, or we’d have no controversy. One SAFE opinion is held by a vast majority of PEOPLE: the baby that is crying is a baby. It is an opinion so widely held that one can justify calling it a fact.
A fetus to be delivered in ten minutes may or may not survive birth once “disconnected” biologically from the mother. But if they do, I know of nobody who will argue against its “personhood”.

The vast majority of people also believe that aborting a healthy fetus in the third trimester that doesn't pose any known risk to the mother is tantamount to murder. It's an opinion held so widely that we can justify calling it a fact.

That you personally don't hold that opinion makes you an outlier, not an expert.

I feel like we are arguing about whether women can drive cars and the discussion is about how people have used vehicles to kill people. For a person who "supports" abortion rights, you have spent an inordinate amount of time for the exclusions.