Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

You do. We don’t. And there’s the rub.

BTW, your view means a woman impregnated by a rapist who gets an abortion in a baby killer. In fact a woman using a morning after pill is a baby killer.

And ignores that many many many fertilized eggs fail to implant and leave the body in menstrual flow, with no one ever knowing that an egg was ever fertilized.

 

[Elixir]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

You do. We don’t. And there’s the rub.

BTW, your view means a woman impregnated by a rapist who gets an abortion in a baby killer. In fact a woman using a morning after pill is a baby killer.

And ignores that many many many fertilized eggs fail to implant and leave the body in menstrual flow, with no one ever knowing that an egg was ever fertilized.

One of the principle tenets of those trying to exercise control over other people’s biological functions, is “out of sight out of mind”. This is their simple means of disposing if the FACT of nature (or their God) causing abortions by the billions.

 

[Toni]

The union of a human egg with a human sperm starts the beginning of an entity that is surely human. We call human entitys persons.

You do. We don’t. And there’s the rub.

BTW, your view means a woman impregnated by a rapist who gets an abortion in a baby killer. In fact a woman using a morning after pill is a baby killer.

And ignores that many many many fertilized eggs fail to implant and leave the body in menstrual flow, with no one ever knowing that an egg was ever fertilized.

One of the principle tenets of those trying to exercise control over other people’s biological functions, is “out of sight out of mind”. This is their simple means of disposing if the FACT of nature (or their God) causing abortions by the billions.

A fertilized egg that fails to implant and is flushed from the body is not in any way other than conservative mythology an abortion.

Pregnancy does not occur until and unless a fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall.

Even then, probably at least one out of four fail to grow and divide appropriately and are flushed with the next menstrual flow, no one ever knowing of their existence. I suppose that could be termed ‘God’s abortion’ just as any other miscarriage not caused by force such as a bad fall, accident or violence could be considered God’s abortion. Sometimes a late pregnancy ends because the cervix is unable to contain a pregnancy past 16 or 20 weeks or a bit more. If this is a known issue, the problem can be averted but usually not known as an issue until one mid-late pregnancy is listed in this manner.

 

[Elixir]

Pregnancy does not occur until and unless a fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall.

Says who? 4 times, a fertilized egg implanted in my wife's fallopian tubes, and 4 times it caused what was termed an ectopic pregnancy.
No biggie - whether or not "potential viability" (an unverifiable concept) dictates the use of the term "pregnant" and its derivatives, doesn't change the facts on the ground. And "God" remains the abortion inducer-in-chief.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

I really wish you and others would be honest about this interaction. Nobody is saying that that baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life (beyond the viability threshold, of course). I'm saying that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's feelings from that point on. Not because a baby is more important than the mother, but because life is more important than feelings.

If there's a risk to the mother's life, then by all means the mother wins out. If there's no risk, however, I simply don't condone the murder of a baby.

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Oh come on. Women are worthy of bodily autonomy... but bodily autonomy doesn't grant women the privilege to murder people.

 

[Toni]

Pregnancy does not occur until and unless a fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall.

Says who? 4 times, a fertilized egg implanted in my wife's fallopian tubes, and 4 times it caused what was termed an ectopic pregnancy.
No biggie - whether or not "potential viability" (an unverifiable concept) dictates the use of the term "pregnant" and its derivatives, doesn't change the facts on the ground. And "God" remains the abortion inducer-in-chief.

I'm sorry for the over generalization: pregnancy occurs upon implantation. A viable pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus, which is about 8 days after fertilization. A fertilized egg that implants in the fallopian tube is not a viable pregnancy.

I'm also sorry for your wife's ectopic pregnancies. They are dangerous and it must have been very difficult to endure four times. Even once is bad.

 

[Emily Lake]

Those are fetuses not babies. Emotionally loaded, deceptive wording noted.

And your definitions of fetus versus baby are based entirely on location. In your view of the world, a developing human inside the womb two days before expected delivery is "just a fetus" and can be killed on a whim with no consequences at all... but a prematurely delivered developing human a month younger than that is protected from murder.

It's insane to me that any rational person with an ounce of ethical consideration could feasibly take such a position. You could literally have two women right next to each other in the hospital, both having conceived on the same day, both 30 weeks along. One goes into premature labor and delivers a human that your principles deem is worthy of being protected from murder. The other has decide she doesn't want the baby and your principles deem that it's her right to kill that human.

There is no functional difference between the two developing humans.

So why don't you also support the mother deciding she doesn't want the prematurely delivered human and having it killed too?

 

[Emily Lake]

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

At 28 weeks development it can - and it frequently does!

So why do you think that a 28 week developing human can be killed on a whim as long as it's in the right location, but if it's in a different location that would be murder?

 

[Toni]

Why is the fetus, completely dependent on t upon the woman, considered to have its life presumed to take precedence over hers?

I really wish you and others would be honest about this interaction. Nobody is saying that that baby's life takes precedence over the mother's life (beyond the viability threshold, of course). I'm saying that the baby's life takes precedence over the mother's feelings from that point on. Not because a baby is more important than the mother, but because life is more important than feelings.

If there's a risk to the mother's life, then by all means the mother wins out. If there's no risk, however, I simply don't condone the murder of a baby.

Why are women not worthy of bodily autonomy?

Oh come on. Women are worthy of bodily autonomy... but bodily autonomy doesn't grant women the privilege to murder people.

There’s the major difference: I don’t consider having an abortion to be murder.

With respect to my own decision making, back when that was an issue, I have my own pretty sure it would be a definite yes ( or n) to having an abortion.

But: I also remember very well when I thought I opposed abortion, certainly fur myself, but them came a very brief amount of time when I was very much afraid I was pregnant and very much would NOT under any circumstances have continued the pregnancy even if it meant ending my own life to end the pregnancy: I just don’t judge. As best as possible and while I am very much a flawed human being, I keep that judgment to myself. I get to make choices and judgements about my own body, my own life. Not anybody else’s .

I’ve helped people obtain abortions when I really hoped they would not. Because I did not have to live with the consequences whatever they did. Looking back at those situations I realize that in fact, I would definitely have done as they did, although I was not at the time, certain it was the ‘right’ thing.

I’ve just learned not to judge. I’ve cried with women who lost babies in the third trimester, with women who buried toddlers and who buried teenagers. The first was not the same as the other situations. Not in the recovery or bounce back period.

The women who lost pregnancies really really wanted to have those babies. They were wanted, planned for pregnancies. They were heartbroken to lose their pregnancies. But they recovered in ways that women who lost their child as a young baby, a toddler, a teen never quite did. Even if they had other children.

That is not at all a scientific observation. But it was pretty obvious.

As I’ve said: I learned not to make judgements.

 

[Emily Lake]

Withholding your blood when you know blood supplies are low and there is a disaster means that someone might die. If you know your kidney is a match for someone in kidney failure Abd you do not choose to donate your kidney, you are costing that person their life.

Why do you have that right?

Do we seriously need to dig in on the distinction between morally laudable actions and morally obligatory actions?

There really is a spectrum when it comes to the morality of actions. At the extreme ends are those that are obligatory (you MUST take action) and those that are prohibited (you MUST NOT take action). Next in are those that are laudable (it's good if you do, but you're not required to take action) and those that are reprehensible (it's bad if you do, but you're not required to refrain from taking action). Most things in real life fall into the middle-most category of permissible, more generally considered amoral - where they're neither good nor bad, and no judgement is attached.

Very few things in life are morally obligatory. The handful that do are those that are viewed as reckless endangerment or willful negligence with the expected actions are not taken. Most of the things we view as morally prohibited are also set in law - the vast majority of our laws are things we are not allowed to do. But there's a huge swath of things that are neither obligatory nor prohibited, but still carry some positive or negative judgement.

In my opinion, I think abortion should be considered permissible (lacking either positive or negative judgement) prior to viability. But I think it should be prohibited after viability unless there are extenuating circumstances that make it necessary or justifiable. I view it in the same way that I view any other murder - prohibited unless there are extenuating circumstances that make it necessary or justifiable.

I cannot see a rational moral framework that allows the murder of one individual to be permissible and another to be prohibited, when the only distinction is location. To me, it's just as irrational as saying you're not allowed to kill your 5 year old if they're outside, but it's okay to kill your five year old if they're in your house. Or to say it's not okay to kill your mentally disabled dependent sibling if they're on the living room, but it's okay to kill them if they're in the bathroom.

 

[Toni]

Withholding your blood when you know blood supplies are low and there is a disaster means that someone might die. If you know your kidney is a match for someone in kidney failure Abd you do not choose to donate your kidney, you are costing that person their life.

Why do you have that right?

Do we seriously need to dig in on the distinction between morally laudable actions and morally obligatory actions?

There really is a spectrum when it comes to the morality of actions. At the extreme ends are those that are obligatory (you MUST take action) and those that are prohibited (you MUST NOT take action). Next in are those that are laudable (it's good if you do, but you're not required to take action) and those that are reprehensible (it's bad if you do, but you're not required to refrain from taking action). Most things in real life fall into the middle-most category of permissible, more generally considered amoral - where they're neither good nor bad, and no judgement is attached.

Very few things in life are morally obligatory. The handful that do are those that are viewed as reckless endangerment or willful negligence with the expected actions are not taken. Most of the things we view as morally prohibited are also set in law - the vast majority of our laws are things we are not allowed to do. But there's a huge swath of things that are neither obligatory nor prohibited, but still carry some positive or negative judgement.

In my opinion, I think abortion should be considered permissible (lacking either positive or negative judgement) prior to viability. But I think it should be prohibited after viability unless there are extenuating circumstances that make it necessary or justifiable. I view it in the same way that I view any other murder - prohibited unless there are extenuating circumstances that make it necessary or justifiable.

I cannot see a rational moral framework that allows the murder of one individual to be permissible and another to be prohibited, when the only distinction is location. To me, it's just as irrational as saying you're not allowed to kill your 5 year old if they're outside, but it's okay to kill your five year old if they're in your house. Or to say it's not okay to kill your mentally disabled dependent sibling if they're on the living room, but it's okay to kill them if they're in the bathroom.

I think that you should use your own moral framework when deciding whether or not you should have an abortion.

 

[laughing dog]

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

At 28 weeks development it can - and it frequently does!

So why do you think that a 28 week developing human can be killed on a whim as long as it's in the right location, but if it's in a different location that would be murder?

Probably for the same reason that you think that a developing human can be killed depending on where they are on the calendar.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think once the fetus is delivered is a demarcation that is easy to observe and maintain.

You think 28 weeks (which cannot be measured exactly) is the demarcation even though there is substantively little between 27 snd 28 weeks. You’re fine with murdering 27 week babies in utero. Once medical technology improves, your magic number will fall.

I don’t think it’s a magic number, and I’ve gone through a lot of effort to provide my reasoning. I think it’s an appropriate and reasonable number. There’s no way to make it absolutely perfect, but 28 weeks is one week more than what most doctors consider viable.

You think it is reasonable and appropriate. So why are the conception people wrong? They think their position is reasonable and appropriate.

Yes, they think their position is reasonable and appropriate... but about 90% of americans disagree with them. In large part because at conception that zygote has exactly 0% chance of surviving outside the womb.

The people at the other extreme end also think they're reasonable and appropriate when they want abortion to be legal at any point with no gestational limits at all... and about 95% disagree with them as well.

Give or take a point depending on the poll and the timing, about 85% of americans think that abortion should be unregulated prior to viability, and limited to medical necessity in the third trimester. And across the board, the general shared value is that somewhere around the time it can survive outside the womb without a high risk of death or severe impairment, it's no longer just a fetus, it's a baby. And killing babies is a bad thing.

If you think that's an unreasonable position, then explain why it's not reasonable. If you think it's reasonable to allow abortions without a medical need up to delivery then defend your position. If you think it's reasonable to prohibit abortions from the moment of conception, then defend that position.

Don't just toss out "well other people think their views are reasonable too!" as if that accomplishes anything. There exist people who think all sorts of completely insane things that they believe are reasonable. But just because some rando out there thinks it's reasonable that everyone on the planet should have to send him 5% of their income because he really wants it doesn't mean that most people think it's reasonable.

At some point, we should engage our brains, weigh the pros and cons, consider the precedent set and how that precedent can be extended, and take a position that we stand behind.

I know what my position is - and I know very well why I have that position. I've given it a lot of thought, I've poked and prodded my own assumptions, my own biases, and my own preconceptions and emotional reactions. I'm very comfortable with my view on this, and I'm confident in the application of reason and logic that led to it.

I am also aware that my position is not a single bright line, and that there are some specifics that I would be willing to negotiate because I recognize that at least some of my policy positions are based on my personal beliefs and preferences.

My entire approach is based on finding the point where most people will mostly agree, then adding a smidge to be safe.

Agree on what? There are a lot of people that aren't hedging over 26 to 28 weeks... they want 0 weeks. Your position doesn't remotely take their thoughts into account.

If you think 10% is enough of a "lot" to overturn a reasonable middle ground, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I've considered their position. I actually understand their position, and I understand why they hold that view. Do you?

It might not be perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than no line at all.

I think the interesting thing is your 'middle road' is actually what you want, and not a compromise at all.

One tiny smidge of people wants no abortions ever. One tinier smidge of people wants completely unfettered abortions right up until the due date. How on earth is "unfettered until viability, with medical need thereafter" NOT a compromise between those two extreme end points?

The whole partial birth abortion ban was a red herring to begin with from the Pro-"Life" movement.

What do you think your point is here? Why do you think that saying this to me has any merit or value to the disussion?

 

[Emily Lake]

You are trying to get a whole category of homicides reclassified as justifiable

Sheesh. Pot, kettle.

What category of homicides do you believe Bomb#20 wants to reclassify as justifiable that you oppose?

 

[ZiprHead]

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

At 28 weeks development it can - and it frequently does!

Requiring a huge amount of medical intervention that can run into the millions of dollars. Just saying.

 

[Bomb#20]

None, B.
As I think you know, it’s about characterization of others motives.
Maybe you missed that or are simply deflecting as is your habit, and you’re good at it. Practice, presumably.
I will try not to direct any further commentary your way that is not materially accurate to the best of my ability, and apologize for confusing you.

Oh, you were accusing me of mischaracterizing Toni’s views. Hmm. It turns out the definition of homicide I read and relied on was oversimplified. Sorry, my bad — not a lawyer. Change homicide to “killing someone whose killing can be a homicide”.

What is it you think we’re doing here? One side is arguing for government hands off; the other is arguing for the limits allowed under RvW. Who do you think is the audience for the arguments in that dispute? You think the Republican base is going to decide they’re fine with abortion on demand if the pro-choice community settles our internecine squabble in favor of that? Are the red states going to become more reasonable, or will Congress do away with states’ limits nationwide, because people who think like Toni outargue people who think like Emily? Of course not. The audience for this dispute is independents and Democrats. The places where policy can change because minds change are blue states. States like Massachusetts, ruled by the Democratic Party.

Right now, to a pretty good approximation, Massachusetts has the abortion law of Emily’s dreams and Oregon has the abortion law of Toni’s dreams. If Democrats collectively decide Toni’s view is right, they have the power to make Massachusetts switch to Oregon rules, and vice versa. Abortion for nonmedical reasons is currently legal up to viability; afterwards it’s a felony. Toni is arguing that third-trimester abortion for non-medical reasons should be legal. That would convert all such abortions in Massachusetts into legal killings. So in what substantive way do you figure I mischaracterized Toni’s view?

This isn’t academic. The lower house passed a bill to do just that.

 

[Toni]

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

At 28 weeks development it can - and it frequently does!

Requiring a huge amount of medical intervention that can run into the millions of dollars. Just saying.

With a plethora of long term and sometimes permanent disabilities or conditions.

 

[Elixir]

You think the Republican base is going to decide they’re fine with abortion on demand if the pro-choice community settles our internecine squabble in favor of that?

Good point, if it’s the one I hope you’re making. Government interference - ESPECIALLY partisan government interference with privacy rights and reproductive decisions, is not good, period, no matter the intent.

The lower house passed a bill to do just that.

Do what? (Link?)

 

[ZiprHead]

A fetus is not autonomous. It cannot survive outside the mother’s body. It depends upon her heart, her lungs, her brain, her circulatory system, kidneys, digestive system, immune system: all of the woman’s body’s functions make the fetus’ continued existence possible.

At 28 weeks development it can - and it frequently does!

Requiring a huge amount of medical intervention that can run into the millions of dollars. Just saying.

With a plethora of long term and sometimes permanent disabilities or conditions.

Working the night shift in the lab meant we handled the NICU patients first before the day shift arrived. Some of these kids were in hospital for months.

 

[Bomb#20]

You think the Republican base is going to decide they’re fine with abortion on demand if the pro-choice community settles our internecine squabble in favor of that?

Good point, if it’s the one I hope you’re making. Government interference - ESPECIALLY partisan government interference with privacy rights and reproductive decisions, is not good, period, no matter the intent.

The lower house passed a bill to do just that.

Do what? (Link?)

Switch Massachusetts to the Oregon rule. It’s bill 5595. Sorry, I’m on a cell phone— links are a pain.