Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

Re-reading some of this thread, hoping not to be again accused of intellectual sloth (call me stupid instead - it’s more accurate) I came across some revelatory stuff.

The objective is to disallow late term abortions that do not have a solid medical indication for them.

Disallowance as an objective? How is that constructive? I would hope for an outcome-based objective instead of disallowance for disallowance’s sake.
(I think I already took down the “solid medical indication” bit.)

Put bluntly: The objective is to make it illegal to kill babies for convenience, even if such situations would be rare.

Making stuff illegal as an objective is downright perverse IMO. Call me crazy but I thought making things illegal NECESSARILY had objectives to diminish whatever behavior is being illegalized.
I’m SURE that’s what Emily meant, but her choice of phrasing reveals an underlying authoritarian bent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are at least three painfully obvious reasons a healthy woman might quite rationally seek to abort a healthy fetus late-term. (1) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, she lost her medical insurance. (2) Seven months into a much-wanted pregnancy, the baby's father walked out on her, or went to prison, or died. (3) Seven months into a much-unwanted pregnancy, she was finally able to lay her hands on enough money to pay for an abortion and/or for travel to a state where it's still legal.

4) Seven months into a pregnancy she didn't want she managed to escape her abuser.

Yes, that too.

But all such cases are very rare and there's no indication that there are actual abortions from them. We have one paper listed--but in reading it it doesn't feel remotely like a normal research paper. And it used an inherently unverifiable data set.

Here's a paper recounting several actual third-trimester abortions not for the mother's health.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

If the cited cases are representative, the takeaway is that the reasons for third-trimester abortions are pretty much the same as the reasons for late-second-trimester abortions. Fetal abnormalities were the most common reason, but a substantial fraction were for reason 3: difficulty raising the money. And a surprisingly high fraction were for reason

5) the mother didn't know she was pregnant.

You have cited that before. It doesn't read like a research paper and that makes me very, very suspicious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Follow-up question: do you consider a preemie a person?

In virtually all cases yes.

And yet those exact same organisms, you would not consider to be persons, if they were enclosed by wombs instead of by ICU incubators, because then they would qualify for the "fetus" label, correct? What is it about the geometrical positioning of a womb that forestalls a different organism's personhood? And you accuse Emily of irrationality. What is your rationale for thinking personhood depends on an organism's environment rather than on its brain? Because from out here you look like you've fallen prey to a map-vs-territory fallacy.

There have been cases of families hauling dead (as in legally declared dead due to lack of brain function) people around to doctors trying to find one who could help them. Thus life processes in a human form are not sufficient to make a person.

Nobody here claimed life processes in a human form are sufficient to make a person. We all agree that fetuses without functional brains because of developmental defects or just not being far enough along in the pregnancy aren't people. So it's not clear why families too grief-stricken to accept death are relevant to the discussion, unless your point is to propose that the reason we keep a seven-month preemie alive in an ICU incubator, instead of just quietly euthanizing it and discarding it as a miscarriage, is that our culture is as irrational about preemies as those families are about their brain-dead loved ones. Was that your point?

It was about rebutting the pro-punishment definition of "person".

Human? Well, they aren't monkeys.
Life processes? Yup, their body is still alive.
Person? No, former person.

Thus life processes in a human body are not sufficient to define "person". And showing even one thing that does not fit is enough to rebut a definition. (Some classics from the internet that come to mind: 4 legs + sit on it = chair. Or horse. Hair and gives milk = mammal. Or coconut.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody is being injured, even in an abstract way (at least not more than by a MukBang channel existing) when the fetus doesn't get born. The fetus hasn't even earned a right to be cared about by someone else other than the person pregnant with them, a thing earned by the simple act of becoming capable of being passed off to literally any other party's mercy.

Reducing the birth rate hurts corporations that now have to compete more for labor.

We have actually had red political people argue a state interest in limiting abortion for demographic reasons.

 

[Elixir]

We have actually had red political people argue a state interest in limiting abortion for demographic reasons.

More serfs = more billionaires

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My husband was born at 34 weeks gestation. He has had a lifetime history of various respiratory illnesses, including asthma and for one entre year, repeated bouts of bronchitis and pneumonia. I seriously thought I would be left a widow with 2 children in my mid-20's. Whether or not that was connected to his premature birth, I have no way of knowing. AFAIK, no doctor ever inquired and I did not attend every medical appointment.

I understand that you care very much about babies --me, too! But I also care very much about people being able to control their own bodies and to make their own medical and reproductive choices. I may not agree with those choices but I made my own choices and have lived with them.

The impression I got from the article you linked is that premature birth is a definite risk factor but it's a general thing. As such, not relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Like my wife's Asian heritage means a higher risk of osteoporosis--screening is more important, but it has no bearing on how the doctor reacts to the results of a dexa scan.

It is very much relevant as far as what immediate health concerns there may be to look out for as well as longer term effects. My husband had a childhood history of asthma that has changed into a tendency to have more serious lower respiratory infections coming along with seasonal flu, etc. There was one truly bad year with repeated bouts of pneumonia and bronchitis, but better since.

You're missing my point.

He has a history of asthma and respiratory infections. That's an indication to the doctors to be looking for such things. A causes C. B causes C. C causes D. We have no indication of a direct link between either A or B and D. Thus the doctor considering D will look at C but not care about A vs B. C is more predictive.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nobody is being injured, even in an abstract way (at least not more than by a MukBang channel existing) when the fetus doesn't get born. The fetus hasn't even earned a right to be cared about by someone else other than the person pregnant with them, a thing earned by the simple act of becoming capable of being passed off to literally any other party's mercy.

Reducing the birth rate hurts corporations that now have to compete more for labor.

We have actually had red political people argue a state interest in limiting abortion for demographic reasons.

Wow, look at you being the one to point it out this time!

Yes. That is the quiet part that they never speak: that they have need to generate a wider "underclass" so as to dilute the power of labor to have their share of direction over the capital and land.

 

[Toni]

My husband was born at 34 weeks gestation. He has had a lifetime history of various respiratory illnesses, including asthma and for one entre year, repeated bouts of bronchitis and pneumonia. I seriously thought I would be left a widow with 2 children in my mid-20's. Whether or not that was connected to his premature birth, I have no way of knowing. AFAIK, no doctor ever inquired and I did not attend every medical appointment.

I understand that you care very much about babies --me, too! But I also care very much about people being able to control their own bodies and to make their own medical and reproductive choices. I may not agree with those choices but I made my own choices and have lived with them.

The impression I got from the article you linked is that premature birth is a definite risk factor but it's a general thing. As such, not relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Like my wife's Asian heritage means a higher risk of osteoporosis--screening is more important, but it has no bearing on how the doctor reacts to the results of a dexa scan.

It is very much relevant as far as what immediate health concerns there may be to look out for as well as longer term effects. My husband had a childhood history of asthma that has changed into a tendency to have more serious lower respiratory infections coming along with seasonal flu, etc. There was one truly bad year with repeated bouts of pneumonia and bronchitis, but better since.

You're missing my point.

He has a history of asthma and respiratory infections. That's an indication to the doctors to be looking for such things. A causes C. B causes C. C causes D. We have no indication of a direct link between either A or B and D. Thus the doctor considering D will look at C but not care about A vs B. C is more predictive.

No you don’t know shit about prematurity in infants or the immediate, or long term health effects.

Premature infants are at high risk of respiratory and heart issues right away. Certainly was true during the 50’s when he was born. Sometimes, issues or potential issues remain for years after the fact. In his case: respiratory issues which may be linked to prematurity. AFAIK, there is NO other family history of any respiratory issues on either side of the family going back a few generations.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here's a paper recounting several actual third-trimester abortions not for the mother's health.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

...

You have cited that before.

No I haven't. I only found it in Google a couple days ago. You must have me mixed up with someone else.

It doesn't read like a research paper and that makes me very, very suspicious.

Suspicious of what? You think the authors just made up fictional characters?

And yet those exact same organisms, you would not consider to be persons, if they were enclosed by wombs instead of by ICU incubators, because then they would qualify for the "fetus" label, correct? What is it about the geometrical positioning of a womb that forestalls a different organism's personhood? And you accuse Emily of irrationality. What is your rationale for thinking personhood depends on an organism's environment rather than on its brain? Because from out here you look like you've fallen prey to a map-vs-territory fallacy.

There have been cases of families hauling dead (as in legally declared dead due to lack of brain function) people around to doctors trying to find one who could help them. Thus life processes in a human form are not sufficient to make a person.

Nobody here claimed life processes in a human form are sufficient to make a person. We all agree that fetuses without functional brains because of developmental defects or just not being far enough along in the pregnancy aren't people. So it's not clear why families too grief-stricken to accept death are relevant to the discussion, unless your point is to propose that the reason we keep a seven-month preemie alive in an ICU incubator, instead of just quietly euthanizing it and discarding it as a miscarriage, is that our culture is as irrational about preemies as those families are about their brain-dead loved ones. Was that your point?

It was about rebutting the pro-punishment definition of "person".

Human? Well, they aren't monkeys.
Life processes? Yup, their body is still alive.
Person? No, former person.

Thus life processes in a human body are not sufficient to define "person". And showing even one thing that does not fit is enough to rebut a definition. (Some classics from the internet that come to mind: 4 legs + sit on it = chair. Or horse. Hair and gives milk = mammal. Or coconut.)

Why the bejesus are you rebutting a definition nobody in the thread proposed and/or relied on? And whatever your reason was, why the bejesus did you use my post as a prop for whatever point you were trying to make? You appear to be trying to score an unearned rhetorical point by smearing my arguments with guilt-by-association with the extremist idiots who claim personhood begins at fertilization.

Incidentally, my definition is not "pro-punishment". It's pro-truth. You also appear to be falling prey to an Appeal to Consequences fallacy.

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Elixir]

You also appear to be falling prey to an Appeal to Consequences fallacy.

That HAS to be one of your favorites:

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

All set to argue "rights" against "least harm", since "least harm" is a consequence and "rights" are not an outcome or a consequence, but a mystical substance that justifies harm.

"Should I drop this brick on my foot?"
"You might damage your foot."
"That's a FALLACY! It's argumentum ad consequentiam!!! You have yet to provide RATIONAL reason to refrain from dropping this brick on my foot!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My husband was born at 34 weeks gestation. He has had a lifetime history of various respiratory illnesses, including asthma and for one entre year, repeated bouts of bronchitis and pneumonia. I seriously thought I would be left a widow with 2 children in my mid-20's. Whether or not that was connected to his premature birth, I have no way of knowing. AFAIK, no doctor ever inquired and I did not attend every medical appointment.

I understand that you care very much about babies --me, too! But I also care very much about people being able to control their own bodies and to make their own medical and reproductive choices. I may not agree with those choices but I made my own choices and have lived with them.

The impression I got from the article you linked is that premature birth is a definite risk factor but it's a general thing. As such, not relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Like my wife's Asian heritage means a higher risk of osteoporosis--screening is more important, but it has no bearing on how the doctor reacts to the results of a dexa scan.

It is very much relevant as far as what immediate health concerns there may be to look out for as well as longer term effects. My husband had a childhood history of asthma that has changed into a tendency to have more serious lower respiratory infections coming along with seasonal flu, etc. There was one truly bad year with repeated bouts of pneumonia and bronchitis, but better since.

You're missing my point.

He has a history of asthma and respiratory infections. That's an indication to the doctors to be looking for such things. A causes C. B causes C. C causes D. We have no indication of a direct link between either A or B and D. Thus the doctor considering D will look at C but not care about A vs B. C is more predictive.

No you don’t know shit about prematurity in infants or the immediate, or long term health effects.

Premature infants are at high risk of respiratory and heart issues right away. Certainly was true during the 50’s when he was born. Sometimes, issues or potential issues remain for years after the fact. In his case: respiratory issues which may be linked to prematurity. AFAIK, there is NO other family history of any respiratory issues on either side of the family going back a few generations.

You're still missing my point.

Yes, being premature is a risk for a wide range of ailments. But having a history of respiratory issues is more important than whether they were caused by being premature.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a paper recounting several actual third-trimester abortions not for the mother's health.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

...

You have cited that before.

No I haven't. I only found it in Google a couple days ago. You must have me mixed up with someone else.

It doesn't read like a research paper and that makes me very, very suspicious.

Suspicious of what? You think the authors just made up fictional characters?

I have no idea what the authors did. I'm just saying that when I read that it feels very different than reading a typical research paper. It's written at a lower level, it's lacking in details that could have been provided, it's missing the usual disclosures. And it's based entirely on survey results, they never saw the medical records. No smoking guns that I can detect but the whole thing just feels wrong.

And yet those exact same organisms, you would not consider to be persons, if they were enclosed by wombs instead of by ICU incubators, because then they would qualify for the "fetus" label, correct? What is it about the geometrical positioning of a womb that forestalls a different organism's personhood? And you accuse Emily of irrationality. What is your rationale for thinking personhood depends on an organism's environment rather than on its brain? Because from out here you look like you've fallen prey to a map-vs-territory fallacy.

There have been cases of families hauling dead (as in legally declared dead due to lack of brain function) people around to doctors trying to find one who could help them. Thus life processes in a human form are not sufficient to make a person.

Nobody here claimed life processes in a human form are sufficient to make a person. We all agree that fetuses without functional brains because of developmental defects or just not being far enough along in the pregnancy aren't people. So it's not clear why families too grief-stricken to accept death are relevant to the discussion, unless your point is to propose that the reason we keep a seven-month preemie alive in an ICU incubator, instead of just quietly euthanizing it and discarding it as a miscarriage, is that our culture is as irrational about preemies as those families are about their brain-dead loved ones. Was that your point?

It was about rebutting the pro-punishment definition of "person".

Human? Well, they aren't monkeys.
Life processes? Yup, their body is still alive.
Person? No, former person.

Thus life processes in a human body are not sufficient to define "person". And showing even one thing that does not fit is enough to rebut a definition. (Some classics from the internet that come to mind: 4 legs + sit on it = chair. Or horse. Hair and gives milk = mammal. Or coconut.)

Why the bejesus are you rebutting a definition nobody in the thread proposed and/or relied on? And whatever your reason was, why the bejesus did you use my post as a prop for whatever point you were trying to make? You appear to be trying to score an unearned rhetorical point by smearing my arguments with guilt-by-association with the extremist idiots who claim personhood begins at fertilization.

Incidentally, my definition is not "pro-punishment". It's pro-truth. You also appear to be falling prey to an Appeal to Consequences fallacy.

Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I used the term "pro-punishment" because the vast majority of supposedly "pro-life" people change their tune when it's rape. If it were truly about life then rape would be treated the same as any other pregnancy--but the vast, vast majority of those who say they are "pro-life" treat them differently. Hence it's not about life, it's about punishment.

And it is relevant as we were discussing a definition for what should be protected. A proper definition must cover the hard cases, not merely the normal cases.

 

[Toni]

My husband was born at 34 weeks gestation. He has had a lifetime history of various respiratory illnesses, including asthma and for one entre year, repeated bouts of bronchitis and pneumonia. I seriously thought I would be left a widow with 2 children in my mid-20's. Whether or not that was connected to his premature birth, I have no way of knowing. AFAIK, no doctor ever inquired and I did not attend every medical appointment.

I understand that you care very much about babies --me, too! But I also care very much about people being able to control their own bodies and to make their own medical and reproductive choices. I may not agree with those choices but I made my own choices and have lived with them.

The impression I got from the article you linked is that premature birth is a definite risk factor but it's a general thing. As such, not relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Like my wife's Asian heritage means a higher risk of osteoporosis--screening is more important, but it has no bearing on how the doctor reacts to the results of a dexa scan.

It is very much relevant as far as what immediate health concerns there may be to look out for as well as longer term effects. My husband had a childhood history of asthma that has changed into a tendency to have more serious lower respiratory infections coming along with seasonal flu, etc. There was one truly bad year with repeated bouts of pneumonia and bronchitis, but better since.

You're missing my point.

He has a history of asthma and respiratory infections. That's an indication to the doctors to be looking for such things. A causes C. B causes C. C causes D. We have no indication of a direct link between either A or B and D. Thus the doctor considering D will look at C but not care about A vs B. C is more predictive.

No you don’t know shit about prematurity in infants or the immediate, or long term health effects.

Premature infants are at high risk of respiratory and heart issues right away. Certainly was true during the 50’s when he was born. Sometimes, issues or potential issues remain for years after the fact. In his case: respiratory issues which may be linked to prematurity. AFAIK, there is NO other family history of any respiratory issues on either side of the family going back a few generations.

You're still missing my point.

Yes, being premature is a risk for a wide range of ailments. But having a history of respiratory issues is more important than whether they were caused by being premature.

Yes, unless you want to prevent more infants and children and adults from having chronic or repeated respiratory ailments. Asthma can be deadly.

 

[Bomb#20]

You also appear to be falling prey to an Appeal to Consequences fallacy.

That HAS to be one of your favorites:

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

All set to argue "rights" against "least harm", since "least harm" is a consequence and "rights" are not an outcome or a consequence, but a mystical substance that justifies harm.

"Should I drop this brick on my foot?"
"You might damage your foot."
"That's a FALLACY! It's argumentum ad consequentiam!!! You have yet to provide RATIONAL reason to refrain from dropping this brick on my foot!"

"Should I drop this brick on my foot?" is not a hypothesis. Nobody is saying it's a fallacy to consider consequences when choosing an action. It's a fallacy to consider consequences when deciding what's the case.

Did you drop this brick on your foot?
If I did can I still sue?
No. Somebody else must have dropped it on your foot.

 

[Elixir]

Should I drop this brick on my foot?" is not a hypothesis.

“If I drop this brick on my foot it will feel good” is an hupothesis. Pedant.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

So what? Theists claim that the majority of people believe in their skydaddy. The vast majority of people believe things that are not so.

… 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;

My view has not morphed one bit.

Did you not demand 3rd part legal authorization, and also say your position was

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

???
Did you forget to include the cops in the all caps “position” you took above, or did you mistakenly require them before?

The cops were never included, Elixir. My view hasn't changed at all from the very beginning. You just keep trying to wedge cops and lawyers into the situation all by yourself.

 

[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.

All humans are dependent on other humans for their survival. Just not directly biologically dependent.

Newborns are 100% biologically dependent on other humans. They are completely incapable of feeding, cleaning, or defending themselves. They can't even run away from a threat. There's no firm line, but in a hunter-gatherer type community, I would guesstimate that somewhere around age 5 children are able to do some simple gathering and eat raw foods, maybe keep an eye on cooking food. Probably somewhere around 7 children can be taught to hunt small game, and probably dress and cook it. So perhaps if you really push the envelope on it, you could argue that a 7 year old has a reasonable degree of independence.

Prior to that... you're drawing an arbitrary line that depends only on whether the umbilical cord is still attached or not. And even though it makes for a convenient distinguishing event, it doesn't actually make any meaningful difference between a being that is 100% dependent on another human and one that is not. Furthermore, the likelihood of survival for a human at 27 vs 30 vs 33 vs 36 weeks who is detached from the umbilicus is independent of whether the mother *wanted* the baby to survive or not.

At the end of the day, you seem to consider a 30 wk premie to be a human being with attendant protections against being killed, but a 30 wk still growing in the womb to merit no protections, and can be killed at the mother's whim. And that view makes no sense to me, and it seems to be morally bankrupt from my perspective.

Go ahead and pretend there's no distinction there.

There's no meaningful distinction there.

At the point in time at which it's reasonably likely (75% or so) that a fetus delivered at that stage would survive and thrive

According to WHOSE analysis?

Medical statistics that have been linked to on multiple occasions.

You went from the law, to two doctors, to one doctor... are we back to two doctors, as was the stated case a few hours ago?

I only added two doctors because that's the norm in other countries. I don't actually care, so long as the doctor documents the relevant medical conditions in the records, I don't see a need for a second opinion - but I also don't think it's a meaningful barrier.

The law has always been involved in my position - but it has NEVER been in a position to give permission prior to medical services. That's something that you invented out of your own head, and have kept repeating over and over and over despite me correcting you about it.

Is there a reliable test for predicting likely survival of a fetus within one percentage point? You'd be okay at just 74%, but not at 75%? Why?
I believe 75% is 99.873% arbitrary, made up, pulled out of your nether regions, whatever. Prove me wrong. Show me the magic of 75%.

Don't be absurd. Seriously, you're trying to nitpick this into oblivion, essentially taking the tack that if it's not perfectly 100% perfect in every possible instance then we can't even try to do anything at all about it. It's a dumb approach, and it's intellectually dishonest.

As I indicated previously, the two docs standard would be okay with me as long as there exceptions for emergencies where two doctors are not available to give approval. You seem dead determined to create some daylight between my position and yours, simply because you don't like my cold and calculating way of looking at it. The other word for that is "rational". I'm having a harder time seeing any real daylight though, now that you've left the government out of the approval process... or have you?

No, Elixir - you simply don't fucking read. Or when you do, you add your own imagined subtext and hidden meanings to it, as if you have some magical ESP. If you would actually just take the time to step back and stop assuming that I'm some caricatured evil hobgoblin, maybe you could talk to me like I'm an adult who merits some basic civility from you.

For example, perhaps if you actually read with the intent of comprehension instead of the intent of antagonism, you would have noted that several pages back I said 1) ERs even in very remote areas never have only one doctor present, and there are always doctors on call but that 2) I'm perfectly fine with a qualified medical provider, be that a doctor, a nurse practitioner, or something similar. Not an orderly for obvious reasons, and probably not a 2-yr nurse, but there's a lot of flexibility in there... and that's all with the assumption of two - which wasn't part of my initial approach anyway.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's simplify this.

At what point in time does a fetus's rights impose a legal liability on the woman?

At the point in time at which it's reasonably likely (75% or so) that a fetus delivered at that stage would survive and thrive. That's the point at which the difference between a prematurely delivered baby and a baby still inside it's oven is pretty much immaterial. Hence the commonly used term "viability", and why that stage of development was chosen.

And when that point changes (as it inexorably will)?

Then we revisit the regulations at that point, if there's a strong consensus appetite to do so. Realistically, I don't think there will be, not for a long time. Technology isn't going to change the gestational development patterns of humans. We might hit a stage where a zygote could be grown outside of a womb entirely... but I give it extremely low odds that a miscarriage at that same point could be saved. There's going to be a point where if something interrupts a pregnancy and instigates labor too early, the fetus is going to die in the process, or has already died prior to that process beginning.

Either way, it's not like this is stone tablets handed down from on high. When there's a reasonable need to evaluate the regulations, we do so. Kind of like how when automobile safety changes, we revisit speed limits on interstates. And how when the value of a dollar changes, we revisit minimum wage. And when cost of living changes, we revisit social security disbursements. And when technology changes, we revisit what's considered a necessary communal service like water and sewage.

 

[Emily Lake]

But we have already squeezed the grape: the AMA and licensing requirements already question doctors whose conduct breaches professional standards of medical ethics.

There are literally no standards of medical ethics that pertain to abortion. Furthermore, a minority of doctors are part of AMA.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody here claimed life processes in a human form are sufficient to make a person. We all agree that fetuses without functional brains because of developmental defects or just not being far enough along in the pregnancy aren't people.

How about semi functional brains? “Mostly functional” ones? How functional do you need them to be? What test of functionality do you propose? I suspect “none”.
Does failure to meet an arbitrary functionality threshold automatically relegated the fetus to non-personhood?

Such puffery is a distraction. All it reveals is that “personhood ” is ill defined, variable by interpretation and in no way a rational criterion for criminal legislation against abortion.

This is a vacuous line of argument.

Your reasoning is identical to saying "Well what about self-defense? Or maybe when the person believes it's self-defense? What about accidents?"... and then proceeding to say that because we can't exactly perfectly nail down every possible situation where one person causes the death of another with 100% accuracy... then we should have zero laws against murder at all.